Office of Water (4607M) EPA 815-R-10-003 www.epa.gov/safewater June 2010 

TOTAL COLIFORM RULE COMPLIANCE MONITORING DATA 

QUALITY AND COMPLETION REPORT 

June 2010 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

i June 2010 

Contents 

1.0 Introduction and Background ......................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 TCR Revisions and TCRDSAC/TWG......................................................................... 1-1

1.2 What Data Were Requested? ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Why Were the Data Requested? .................................................................................. 1-2

2.0 TCR Data Received ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 How Do States Receive and Store Data? ............................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 How Did States Provide Data to EPA? .................................................................. 2-2

2.1.3 Inventory Gaps in Data Provided by States ........................................................... 2-2

2.2 States/Primacy Data ..................................................................................................... 2-3

3.0 QA Approach .................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Use of the 50 Percent Criterion and 2005 Data ........................................................... 3-1

3.2 Primary Field Selection ................................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.1 Data Elements that Were Excluded ....................................................................... 3-9

3.3 Universal Decisions/Rules for Clean-up .................................................................... 3-10

3.3.1 Records Represent Individual Assays .................................................................. 3-10

3.3.2 TCR Quality Assurance Tests .............................................................................. 3-10

3.3.3 General Observations during Clean-up Process .................................................. 3-12

3.3.4 What Records to Remove .................................................................................... 3-12

3.3.5 Cross-Cutting Issues ............................................................................................ 3-13

3.3.5.1 Summary Reporting ...................................................................................... 3-14

3.3.5.2 Incomplete Data ............................................................................................ 3-14

3.3.5.3 Representativeness of Large Systems........................................................... 3-15

3.3.5.4 Fecal/E. coli Records .................................................................................... 3-15

3.4 Field Names ............................................................................................................... 3-15

3.5 Additional QA Checks ............................................................................................... 3-15

4.0 Clean-up as On-going Process ......................................................................................... 4-1

Appendices 

Appendix A Summary of Data from States Using the Extraction Tool: State-by-State Breakout 

Appendix B Summary of Data from States Not Using the Extraction Tool: State-by-State 

Breakout 

Appendix C Summary of States Not Included in the Final Dataset: State-by-State Breakout 

Appendix D State ICR Data Request Letter 

 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

ii June 2010 

EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 2.1 Summary of States Submitting TCR Data and Its Use ............................................ 2-4

Exhibit 2.2 Summary of States Not Submitting TCR Data ........................................................ 2-5

Exhibit 3.1 Effect of Minimum ................................................................................................... 3-3

Exhibit 3.2 Effect of Minimum Monthly Criteria on Proportion of Positive Samples ............... 3-5

Exhibit 3.3 TC Percent Positive (Using 50% Criterion) ............................................................. 3-6

Exhibit 3.4 Data Element Field Names and Definitions ............................................................. 3-7

Exhibit 3.5 Application of Rules .............................................................................................. 3-17
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

1-1 June 2010 

1.0 Introduction and Background 

This document describes how Total Coliform Rule (TCR) monitoring data were obtained, 

evaluated, and modified where necessary for analyses associated with the review of the TCR. In 

particular, these data were cleaned for the purpose of developing occurrence parameters for the 

predictive model used in the economic analysis (EA) developed for the proposed Revised TCR 

(RTCR), described in Chapter 5 (section 5.2 of the EA). This document describes the data 

requested and received, data quality issues, and modifications to the data to make it consistent 

and usable for subsequent analyses. Other documents describe the analyses performed. 

1.1 TCR Revisions and TCRDSAC/TWG 

 The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [Section 1412(b)(9)] 

require the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

review and revise, as appropriate, each national primary drinking water regulation not less than 

every six years. In the first Six-Year Review (Six-Year Review 1), EPA produced preliminary 

results six years after the 1996 SDWA Amendments were passed and published final results in 

July 2003 in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) Review. EPA’s 

findings included a decision to revise the TCR. In response to recommendations from the Stage 

2 M/DBP Federal Advisory Committee, EPA also decided to consider whether it would be 

appropriate to add new requirements to address risks associated with distribution systems. 

 EPA established the Total Coliform Rule Distribution System Advisory Committee 

(TCRDSAC) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the 

TCRDSAC is to provide advice and make recommendations to EPA during development of a 

revised TCR (RTCR). The committee will also consider what information about distribution 

systems is needed to better understand the public health impact from the degradation of drinking 

water quality in distribution systems. 

1.2 What Data Were Requested? 

 EPA requested voluntary submission of monitoring data (sample results) that were 

available electronically for specified chemical, radiological, and microbiological contaminants 

that were collected between January 1998 and December 2005 (Appendix E). EPA requested 

data collected in compliance with the TCR regarding the presence/absence of total coliforms, E. 

coli, and/or fecal coliforms and also welcomed any disinfection data collected at TCR 

monitoring sites. Surface water systems are required to monitor for the presence of a disinfectant 

residual when collecting coliform samples in the distribution system. 

 Systems must take total coliform “routine” samples on an annual, quarterly, or monthly 

basis, depending on their size and type and state requirements. The more people served by the 

system, the more samples that must be taken. When samples test positive for total coliforms, 

systems must take “repeat” samples at and near the same location, and small systems must take 

at least 5 “routine” samples in the following month. All samples that test positive for total 

coliforms must also be tested for either fecal coliforms or E. coli. Violations occur if there are 

too high a proportion of total coliform positive samples, or samples that test positive for fecal 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

1-2 June 2010 

coliforms or E. coli and have a related TC positive sample. Violations occur if there are too high 

a proportion of total coliform positive samples during a given sampling period, or if repeat 

samples from a total coliform positive sample test positive for fecal coliform or E. coli. Details 

about the rule requirements can be found in the TCR (USEPA, 1989) 1. 

1.3 Why Were the Data Requested? 

 These data are an important component in supporting EPA’s second Six Year Review 

(Six-Year Review 2) of NPDWRs, conducted primarily from 2003 – 2008. During this period, 

EPA encouraged each Primacy Agency to submit its contaminant occurrence information for 

years 1998 – 2005 because these data will directly contribute to EPA’s understanding of national 

contaminant occurrence, populations exposed to regulated contaminants, and exposure 

reductions associated with the current regulations. 

 EPA requested the TCR monitoring results with the intent of conducting analyses and 

developing models to assess the potential impacts of changes to the rule. Models of the 

occurrence of total coliforms and E. coli were developed using the TCR data to assess revisions 

to monitoring requirements and compliance decisions for different types of systems as suggested 

by the stakeholders during the FACA process. The occurrence of total coliforms is thought to be 

affected by seasonal influences, and so at least 1 year worth of data would be needed for 

analyses. 

 

1

A link to the TCR website (USEPA, 1989) can be found at: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/qrg_tcr_v10.pdf. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

2-1 June 2010 

2.0 TCR Data Received 

2.1 Background 

EPA received data from 46 States, Tribes, and territories (“States”) and eventually 

included data from 37 primacy agencies (35 states and 2 tribes) in the final dataset used for 

analysis. In addition, data from the Safe Drinking Water Act Information System – Federal 

Version (SDWIS/Fed) database was used to compare and, in some cases, fill in data missing 

from State submissions. 

2.1.1 How Do States Receive and Store Data? 

States collect detailed data regarding compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, a 

summary of which must be reported to EPA and incorporated into SDWIS/Fed. Some States 

allow for electronic reporting of TCR sample results by the labs or the systems to the State, but 

in States that do not have electronic reporting, sample results have to be entered manually. The 

volume of data collected to determine TCR compliance is quite formidable, especially for large 

systems. Some States allow some systems to report total coliform-positive data in summary 

form rather than in detail. 

The data reported by the States to SDWIS/FED includes required inventory information 

(population served, type of source water, public water system category) and required compliance 

information. It does not include sampling results. EPA maintains the SDWIS/Fed database. 

 

To assist the States, EPA developed a data system—SDWIS/State—that can serve their 

internal needs and make reporting of required inventory and compliance summary information to 

SDWIS/Fed easier. Most States now use the SDWIS/State database system, which includes 

results for individual samples. Other States are transitioning to SDWIS/State, but have some of 

their current or older records in other systems. Some States rely on other data systems. Some 

States maintain some records in paper files and some maintain records in multiple offices in the 

State. In every case, however, summary inventory and compliance information is provided to 

SDWIS/Fed. See Exhibit 2.1 for a summary of list of States that submitted TCR data from 

SDWIS/State. 

SDWIS/State databases were designed with input from each State; however, there are 

some uniform data entry requirements that apply to all users of SDWIS/State. When entering 

individual sample results for TCR compliance, certain data fields are required in order to create a 

record. 

In addition to using different databases to maintain their records, States reported data in 

different ways. These differences and how they were treated in subsequent multi-State analyses 

will be discussed in chapter 3 and in appendices A-C. 

 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

2-2 June 2010 

2.1.2 How Did States Provide Data to EPA? 

Every six years, EPA is required to review existing rules and decide whether revisions 

are necessary. As a part of the latest Six-Year Review process (Six-Year Review 2), EPA 

decided to request a voluntary submission of data that would be helpful in assessing the state of 

the TCR, which was to be the subject of a Federal Advisory Committee. A letter was sent to 

States requesting their voluntary participation for TCR-related data in conjunction with the 

collection of data for the Six-Year Review (Appendix A). The letter requested data for six years 

(1999-2005) and specified particular data. 

EPA prepared a tool that States using SDWIS/State could use to easily extract data from 

their databases and submit it to EPA. The data extraction tool (“extraction tool”) was a query 

that collected the data elements requested in the letter to the States. The data provided through 

the query tool will be discussed in detail in following sections. The States that submitted data 

using this tool are listed in Exhibit 2.1. Even among States using SDWIS/State and using the 

extraction tool, not all had records for all years or for all types of systems. There were also some 

differences in how data were recorded in their databases, and these differences will be described 

below in several sections and in Appendix A to this report. 

 Some States not using SDWIS/State also provided data, as listed in Exhibit 2.1 and 

described in Appendix B. Because these States used other databases, extra steps were often 

required to make the data submitted comparable with data submitted from other States. These 

differences and the steps needed to make them comparable are summarized in sections below. 

In the case of some states, data submitted were not used because they could not be made 

comparable with the combined dataset of States using the extraction tool. Appendix C describes 

by State the issues with datasets that were not used in the analysis. Generally, these issues 

included the following: Data were provided in formats that were internally inconsistent and 

could not be compiled for analysis within that state’s dataset nor combined with the other states 

that used the standard SDWIS/State format; datasets used unfamiliar codes, and the effort to 

clarify the codes to make the data consistent with that of other states was not always successful; 

some data presented extremely high occurrence rates, indicating that the State had generally not 

reported negative samples; some datasets did not distinguish between routine and repeat samples; 

and some datasets included data from so few systems that data were assumed not to be 

representative of the State. 

Not all States submitted data in response to the voluntary request. In some cases there 

were no data in an electronic form that could be easily collected and submitted, or the effort 

needed to comply was beyond available State resources. In some cases, partial data were 

submitted (for example, only for certain years or certain system types). 

2.1.3 Inventory Gaps in Data Provided by States 

In several cases EPA needed to supplement data provided by the States with data it had 

available in SDWIS/Fed, particularly for retail population served, water source type, and water 

system type. The data quality issues subsection for each state section in Appendices A and B 

includes this information. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

2-3 June 2010 

2.2 States/Primacy Data 

Exhibit 2.1 lists the States that provided at least some data on sampling results in 

response to the EPA request, whether the State submitted data based on the extraction tool, and 

whether data from the State were eventually used in subsequent analyses. States and other 

primacy agencies that did not provide any TCR data are included in Exhibit 2.2. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

2-4 June 2010 

Exhibit 2.1 Summary of States Submitting TCR Data and Its Use 

State/Territory SDWIS Extraction Tool? Will Data Be Used? 

Alabama Y N 

Alaska Y Y 

American Samoa N N 

Arizona Y Y 

Arkansas N Y 

Colorado Y Y 

Connecticut Y Y 

Delaware Y Y 

District of Columbia N N 

Florida N Y 

Georgia Y Y 

Idaho Y Y 

Illinois N Y 

Indiana Y Y 

Iowa Y Y 

Kansas Y Y 

Kentucky Y Y 

Maine Y N 

Maryland N N 

Michigan N Y 

Minnesota N Y 

Missouri N Y 

Montana Y Y 

Nebraska Y Y 

Nevada Y Y 

New Jersey Y N 

New Mexico Y Y 

New York Y Y 

New Hampshire N Y 

North Carolina Y Y 

North Dakota Y Y 

Ohio N Y 

Oklahoma Y Y 

Oregon Y Y 

Rhode Island Y Y 

South Carolina N N 

South Dakota N N 

Tennessee N N 

Utah Y Y 

Vermont Y Y 

Virginia N Y 

West Virginia Y Y 

Wisconsin N Y 

Wyoming Y Y 

Navajo Nation N N 

Region 8 Tribal Y Y 

Region 9 Tribal N Y 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

2-5 June 2010 

Exhibit 2.2 Summary of States Not Submitting TCR Data 

State/Territory Reason No Data Submitted 

California 

State chose not to submit data. TCR 

data is not stored electronically; TCR 

data is on paper in field offices 

Guam State did not respond to request for data. 

Hawaii State did not submit data. 

Louisiana State did not respond to request for data. 

Massachusetts 

State chose not to submit data. State 

does not store TC, FC, EC, or residual 

data electronically. 

Mississippi State did not respond to request for data. 

Northern 

Mariana Islands State did not respond to request for data. 

Pennsylvania State chose not to submit data. 

Puerto Rico State did not respond to request for data. 

Texas 

State personnel had communicated that 

they would send data but it was not 

received. 

Virgin Islands State did not respond to request for data. 

Washington State chose not to submit data. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-1 June 2010 

3.0 QA Approach 

3.1 Use of the 50 Percent Criterion and 2005 Data 

For the data to be most useful in subsequent analyses, certain conditions were preferable. 

EPA sought to develop a dataset that would provide information that was cleaned enough to 

achieve a desired level of quality while still retaining enough of the original data to maintain a 

reasonable level of representativeness of the data submitted. The dataset needed to be 

representative both in terms of the breadth of PWSs in the U.S. and of a full year of seasons. 

The first condition for the data meeting certain quality standards was that the data 

reported for a month of samples contained all the samples taken. In particular, the data for a 

month of a system’s data must contain both the samples that tested negative as well as those that 

tested positive in a month. Some States allow some systems to report negative results in a 

summary format, but these summary data were not included as a part of this data request. As a 

result, some systems only had data for positive sample results. Further, the data on population 

served came from the most recent information in SDWIS/Fed2 at the time (2007 fourth quarter), 

which may have been updated since the samples were actually taken. In the most severe case, a 

system might have grown and now was required to take 15 samples per month rather than the 10 

samples per month required at the time the samples were actually being taken. 

To ensure that a system’s sampling data appeared complete during the months when TCR 

results were reported, a standard of having at least 50% of the number of samples expected based 

on system size was applied to each system’s TCR compliance data on a monthly basis. The 

quality objective was to exclude from the compiled dataset those system-months having only a 

system’s positive results or otherwise not including many of a system’s samples for the month. 

The selection of a 50% criterion was based on consideration of the resulting proportion of overall 

samples, systems, and system-months retained in the compiled dataset after applying a range of 

percentage criteria (0%, 10%, 50%, 80%, 90%, and 100%) to eliminate system-months not 

having an adequate number of samples. The 50% criterion was found to retain a high proportion 

of the samples, systems, and system-months of data while still filtering out the worst systemmonths in terms of apparent quality or completeness issues. 

Thus the first condition – having reasonably complete system-months of data – moved 

the data towards the goal of increasing quality while maintaining representativeness. The 

Technical Work Group of the Federal Advisory Committee agreed with this approach. The 

effect of setting the criterion at different levels on representativeness of systems, samples, 

system-months of data, and levels of occurrence is minimal, especially in the range of 50% or 

more, as shown in Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2. A higher level, i.e., 80%, would be incrementally more 

inclusive, but the 50% gap allows for legitimate gaps in number of samples taken to samples 

expected based on population changes. Since a system’s minimum number of samples per 

month is based on its population served, those systems that grew into the next level of population 

between the start of the data sampling period (1998) and the baseline PWS inventory year of the 

analysis (2007) were required to take more samples in 2007 (the year of inventory data used in 

 

2

 Further information on SDWIS/FED can be found on EPA’s website: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases/sdwis/index.html. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-2 June 2010 

the baseline) than in 1998 – 2005. EPA determined that the largest potential gap caused by this 

change was a 50% difference in number of samples; hence EPA focused further analysis of 

representativeness on the 50% criterion. This approach was presented and explained to the 

TWG, who accepted it as a reasonable balance between representativeness and quality in the 

data. EPA also mentioned use of this criterion in updates to FACA members regarding the 

analysis. 

The second condition was that the overall dataset resulting from the data cleaning process 

should encompass at least a full year of data for community water systems so that all seasons are 

represented. Therefore, EPA reviewed the number of records available on an annual basis, to 

determine the year during which the largest number was available. The numbers of records 

available for the requested years were compared. Data for the year 2005 had the most records 

compared to other years, based on systems increasing the amount of data they locate centrally 

with EPA over the years. Exhibit 3.3 contains data only for months in which a system had at 

least 50 percent of the number of required TCR samples. The period 1998-2001 had many fewer 

records available. As mentioned for Exhibits 3.1 – 3.2, results in Exhibit 3.3 are based on 28 

states’ data analyzed prior to compilation of the final dataset, and served as the basis for the 

FACA’s decision to select the 50% criterion described in section 3.0 of this report. 

Consideration of the additional states’ data to complete the 37-state dataset indicated that the 

same analysis applied to the final dataset would be consistent with these results. 

The difference observed in the number of records available from year to year occurs because 

some States were not using SDWIS/State during the whole period. Some States began using the 

SDWIS/State program sometime during this period, and some States that were already using the 

program at the start of the period began uploading more of their data at some point during the 

period. Based on the increased number of systems participating and the corresponding increase 

in data available, a decision was made to use 2005 data exclusively in subsequent analyses. The 

decision to include a single data year considered the following: 

• There were fewer data and systems represented in the years before 2005, especially 

2001 and earlier, and may be not comparable with the 2005 data. The difference in 

the base of systems studied year-to-year might introduce an unknown bias. 

• Examination of SDWIS/FED TCR MCL violations3 showed relatively little change in 

TCR MCL violation rates across the years 1999 – 2005, suggesting that little 

difference would be observed in the rate of TC occurrence across the same years if 

data sets of comparable levels of completeness were available. Thus, it appears that 

any benefit would be minimal from including the less comprehensive data sets from 

earlier years in estimating a national baseline rate of TCR occurrence. 

• Using only a single year of data would mean that the resulting statistics would reflect 

a full year of the results, which was to be the basis for future analyses, and avoid the 

problems of interpreting multiple years of data (each with different coverage of 

systems) as a single year of results. 

 

3 Found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/databases/pivottables.html in the summary inventory, violations, and 

GPRA MS Excel PivotTables® (8.3 MB ZIP File). 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-3 June 2010 

• Last, a single year of data would allow a single database to be able to hold all the data 

for easier manipulation in desktop applications. 

 Exhibit 3.1a Effect of Minimum Monthly Criteria (0%, 10%, 80%, and 100%) on the 

Proportions Included of Samples, Systems, and System-Months by System Type 

(All Systems, CWS, NTNCWS, and TNCWS) 

NTNCWS

90%

93%

95%

98%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Criteria Percentage

TNCWS

90%

93%

95%

98%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Criteria Percentage

Notes: Data shown are from 2005 in the Six-Year Review 2 dataset after cleaning as described in section 3.0. 

Results shown are based on 28 states’ data as described in section 3.1 of this report.

All Systems

90%

93%

95%

98%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Criteria Percentage

Number of Samples

Number of Systems

Number of System Months

CWS

90%

93%

95%

98%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Criteria Percentage
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-4 June 2010 

Exhibit 3.1b Effect of Minimum Monthly Criteria (0%, 10%, 80%, and 100%) on the 

Proportions Included of Samples, Systems, and System-Months for Systems 

Serving >1,000 People 

Notes: Data shown are from 2005 in the Six-Year Review 2 dataset after cleaning as described in 

section 3.0. Results shown are based on 28 states’ data as described in section 3.1 of this report.

 

 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-5 June 2010 

Exhibit 3.1c Effect of Minimum Monthly Criteria (0%, 10%, 80%, and 100%) on the 

Proportions Included of Samples, Systems, and System-Months by Sampling 

Period (pooled for 1998 through 2004 and for 2005) 

Systems, 1998-2004

90%

93%

95%

98%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Criteria Perentage

Systems, 2005

90%

93%

95%

98%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Criteria Perentage

Notes: Data shown are from 1998 - 2005 in the Six-Year Review 2 dataset after cleaning as described in 

section 3.0. Results shown are based on 28 states’ data as described in section 3.1 of this report.

 

Exhibit 3.2 Effect of Minimum Monthly Criteria on Proportion of Positive Samples 

Observed by System Type and by System Size 

 Notes: Data shown are from 2005 in the Six-Year Review 2 dataset after cleaning as described in section 3.0. 

 Results shown are based on 28 states’ data as described in section 3.1 of this report. 

Percent Positive, by System Type

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Criteria Percentage

All CWS NTNCWS TNCWS

Percent Positive, By System Size

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Criteria Percentage

All Serving 0-1,000 Serving More Than 1,000

♦ Number of Samples 

▪ Number of Systems 

Number of System Months ▲
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-6 June 2010 

Exhibit 3.2 Effect of Minimum Monthly Criteria on Proportion of Fecal Indicator 

Positive Samples by Sampling Period (1998 – 2005, 2005, 1998 – 2004) 

Percent Positive, By Period

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Criteria Percentage

All 2005 1998-2004

Notes: Data shown are from the Six-Year Review 2 

dataset after cleaning as described in section 3.0. 

Results shown are based on 28 states’ data as 

described in section 3.1 of this report. 

Exhibit 3.3 TC Percent Positive (Using 50% Criterion) 

TC Percent Positive (Using 50% Criterion)

By Type of System, 1998-2005

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

TNCWS

NTNCWS

All

CWS

Notes: Data shown are from 2005 in the Six-Year Review 2 dataset after cleaning as 

described in section 3.0. Results shown are based on 28 states’ data as described in 

section 3.1 of this report. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-7 June 2010 

3.2 Primary Field Selection 

 The extraction tool obtained data for several data fields that exist in SDWIS/State 

(Exhibit 3.4). The data fields as listed in SDWIS/State are shown in the first column of Exhibit 

3.4. The data fields were given new names, listed in the second column, that were easier for 

users of the final data. Fields that were not needed are labeled as “REMOVED” and discussed in 

section 3.2.1. The third column of Exhibit 3.4 gives a short definition of the data field. 

Exhibit 3.4 Data Element Field Names and Definitions 

Original Data Element 

Field Name Final Data Element Field Name Data Element Field Definition 

NUMBER0 PWSID_Number Uniquely identifies the water system 

within a specific State. 

NAME PWSID_Name 

Name of the water system. The name 

can be the formal, legal, or common 

name that is used most generally in 

referring to the water system. 

D_PWS_FED_TYPE_CD System_Type 

Coded value which classifies the water 

system according to federal 

requirements. 

D_POPULATION_COUNT Population_Served Count of the total population served by 

a water system. 

D_FED_PRIM_SRC_CD Source_Water 

Coded value which classifies the 

source water type according to federal 

requirements. 

ST_ASGN_IDENT_CD REMOVED A State-assigned value which 

identifies the system facility. 

TINWSF_NAME REMOVED The name of the water system facility. 

TSASMPPT_IS_NUMBER Sampling_Point_Number 

Intended to be a value which, in 

conjunction with at least one other 

attribute or relationship, uniquely 

identifies the entity occurrence. 

TSASMPPT_TYPE_CODE Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

Coded value that represents the 

location type of a sampling point (e.g., 

unit process, water system facility, 

distribution system). 

SOURCE_TYPE_CODE Source_Water_Treatment Type of water source, based on 

whether treatment has taken place. 

IDENTIFICATION_CD Facility_ID_Number 

Unique code for identifying a water 

system facility sample point. This 

value must be unique within the Water 

System Facility. 

DESCRIPTION_TEXT Sampling_Point_Text Description of the sampling point. 

LD_CP_TIER_LEV_TXT REMOVED 

If valued 1, 2, or 3 and 

TSASMPPT_TYPE_CODE = DS, then 

represents Tap. If 

TSASMPPT_TYPE_CODE <> DS, 

then probably represents Source. 

LAB_ASGND_ID_NUM Lab_Sample_Number 

Sample identification number assigned 

by the laboratory for tracking the 

sample within the lab. 

COLLLECTION_END_DT Date_Sample_Taken Sample Collection Date. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-8 June 2010 

Original Data Element 

Field Name Final Data Element Field Name Data Element Field Definition 

ANALYSIS_COMPL_DT Date_Sample_Analyzed Date the laboratory completed the 

analysis of a sample 

COMPL_PURP_IND_CD REMOVED 

When selected in the sample record, 

the sample and its results will be used 

(by any automated software) in the 

determination of compliance for that 

sample. Samples not selected will not 

be used in any compliance 

determination. 

TSASAMPL_TYPE_CODE Sample_Type 

Type of sample. This is an important 

element. Routine and repeat sample 

codes are entered as sample type 

designation. Other types of samples 

include confirmation, special, batch 

blanks, field blanks, performance 

evaluation, shipping blanks, split 

blanks, maximum residence, and 

matrix spike. 

REPEAT_LOC_TYP_CD Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location

Location of the repeat sample with 

respect to the location of the original 

routine sample (usually indicating the 

original location, upstream, 

downstream or other) 

TSASMN_CODE Analytical_Method 

Code value that represents the 

method that was used to analyze the 

sample (e.g., EPA assigned method 

code). 

TSAANLYT_NAME Analyte_Name 

Common name of a contaminant as 

used by States and EPA in the rules 

and other documents, such as total 

coliforms, fecal coliforms, or E. coli. 

TSAANLYT_CODE Analyte_Code 

Standard code used by EPA and the 

States to represent analytes in the 

national database. Each analyte has a 

unique code assigned to it for 

reference in compliance determination.

LESS_THAN_IND REMOVED 

Binary indication of whether the result 

is “less than” the Lab Reporting Limit 

or “less than” the Regulatory Minimum 

Reporting Limit. 

LESS_THAN_CODE REMOVED 

When valued, indicates that the 

analytical result (concentration) was 

below the Regulatory Minimum 

Reporting Level or below the 

Laboratory Reporting Level (which in 

turn must be at or below the regulated 

MCL for the analyte). 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-9 June 2010 

Original Data Element 

Field Name Final Data Element Field Name Data Element Field Definition 

DETECTN_LIMIT_NUM REMOVED 

The limit established by the laboratory 

below which scientifically reliable 

results cannot be achieved. In many 

cases, if the computed detection limit 

is below the Method Detection Limit, 

then the Method Detection Limit is 

used as the detection limit; if the 

computed detection limit is above the 

Method Detection Limit, then the 

detection limit is used. 

DETECTN_LIM_UOM_CD REMOVED Standard Unit of Measure for 

DETECTN_LIMIT_NUM 

REPORTED_MSR REMOVED 

The actual reported measure of a 

chemical/rad/water quality result. This 

measure is captured as text in order to 

preserve the trailing zeros which 

indicate the precision of the measure. 

The text value is also converted to a 

number and stored in the SBS_SAR 

Concentration_Measure attribute. 

CONCENTRATION_MSR REMOVED 

A numeric value that represents the 

result obtained from a sample 

analysis. 

UOM_CODE REMOVED Standard Unit of Measure 

PRESENCE_IND_CODE Presence_Absence_Result 

Indicates whether results of an 

analysis were positive (P-Presence) or 

negative (A-Absence). Indication of 

presence or absence creates an 

analytical result for a specific analyte. 

COUNT_QTY REMOVED 

The number of organisms counted or 

estimated in a microbiological sample. 

Usually expressed as “# of colonies 

per 100 milliliter sample.” 

COUNT_TYPE REMOVED 

Type of microbiological unit that is 

being counted per specified count unit. 

Count type varies with the 

microbiological organism where count 

has been recorded. 

COUNT_UOM_CODE REMOVED The units of measure associated with 

the microbial analytical result count. 

3.2.1 Data Elements that Were Excluded 

As shown in the second column of Exhibit 3.5, some data fields were judged to not be 

needed and were removed from the data sets. 

• ST_ASGN_IDENT_CD and TINWSF_NAME were usually redundant of the name 

and PWSID number in SDWIS, and where they were not, this information was not 

available for each State and was not needed. 

• LD_CP_TIER_LEV_TXT was judged to be unnecessary in subsequent analyses. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-10 June 2010 

• COMPL_PURP_IND_CD was a criterion used in the extraction tool—every sample 

had to be a compliance sample. As a result, every record had the same data for this 

field and the field was not needed. 

• LESS_THAN_IND, LESS_THAN_CODE, DETECTN_LIMIT_NUM, 

DETECTN_LIM_UOM_CD, REPORTED_MSR, CONCENTRATION_MSR, 

UOM_CODE, PRESENCE_IND_CODE, COUNT_QTY, and COUNT_TYPE, 

COUNT_UOM_CODE are either not related to information necessary for the TCR, 

which considers only presence/absence of total coliforms, or are not related to 

measurements of total coliforms. 

3.3 Universal Decisions/Rules for Clean-up 

3.3.1 Records Represent Individual Assays 

Most records submitted derived from SDWIS/State and the extraction tool and 

represented either a total coliform test result, a fecal coliform test result, or an E. coli test result. 

This became the default structure where each record represents one sample event, or a follow-on 

test result for fecal coliforms or E. coli. Therefore, the structure of the data tables was that a total 

coliform sample with a positive result that is subsequently analyzed for E. coli or fecal coliforms 

would be recorded as two separate records – one record for the TC result and one record for the 

EC or FC result. The use of assays for FC was much less prevalent than those for EC, and EPA 

determined that the low number of FC assays were determined to be too underrepresented to 

have meaning by themselves. Because some systems used FC assays preferentially over EC 

assays, in order to retain that indicator information EPA treated FC and EC essentially the same, 

as a “fecal indicator.” Therefore, both types of results were incorporated into the occurrence 

distribution analysis described in section 5.2 of the RTCR EA. 

3.3.2 TCR Quality Assurance Tests 

For each State and some of the important fields, initial quality assurance tests were 

performed. Corrections made to the data as a result of the quality assurance tests are explained 

in detail in the individual State summaries found in Appendices A and B, and in some of the 

state summaries found in Appendix C, where initial QA was performed on the dataset provided. 

Fields that are required in SDWIS/State are noted by an asterisk. The quality assurance tests 

included the following: 

• Count of records—recorded the total number of records in each original State dataset. 

• *PWSID—recorded the number of unique systems in each dataset and compared 

against the SDWIS/Fed count; performed a data quality check for the number of 

characters (9) in the number, State prefix as the first two characters, and only zeroes 

followed the State prefix (no “O”s). Note that Utah uses the full State name rather 

than State acronym (e.g., UTAH12345). 

• *Sample Type (routine, repeat, special purposes, etc.)—checked for all unique values 

entered into data element field (including blanks); recorded the number and 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-11 June 2010 

calculated the percentage of each data element (including blanks) based on the 

Sample Type field. A high percentage of repeat samples to routine samples could 

indicate missing data for routine samples. 

• *Date of Sample Collection — recorded the number of records with entries in this 

field; recorded the number of blank records; recorded the range of dates; and 

confirmed that dates were in date format. 

• Date of Sample Analysis—recorded the number of records with entries in this field; 

recorded the number of blank records; recorded the range of dates; and confirmed the 

dates were in date format. 

• Difference in Sample Collection and Sample Analysis Dates (when comparable)—

compared the difference in days between data collection and lab analysis. Examined 

likely erroneous entries (those more than 10 days), and determined whether there was 

a likely typographical data entry error that could be corrected. 

• *Results (analyte name, presence absence result)—recorded all unique values entered 

(including blanks); recorded the number and calculated the percentage of each type of 

code; recorded the number and calculated the percentage of presence/absence results. 

• Sampling Point Identification; Sampling Point Relative Location—checked for blanks 

and unusual data; checked for all unique values entered (including blanks); recorded 

the number and percentage of each type of code (including blanks). 

• Repeat Sample Relative Location—checked for all unique values entered (including 

blanks); recorded the number and percentage of each type of code (including blanks); 

checked that data elements were only entered for repeat samples. 

• *System Type—checked for all unique values entered (including blanks); recorded 

the number and percentage of each type of code (including blanks). 

• *Population Served—checked and recorded the number and percentage of systems 

with zero values and of systems serving between 1 and 24 persons; compared the 10 

largest systems in each State (regardless of absolute size) for reasonableness 

(compared the dataset and SDWIS/Fed inventory). For States that did not provide 

population data, retrieved data from SDWIS/Fed inventory. 

• Analytical Method—checked for all unique values entered (including blanks); 

recorded the number and percentage of each type of code (including blanks). 

• Unique Sampling Point—checked for the likelihood of being able to link samples 

with unique sampling points within systems. 

 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-12 June 2010 

3.3.3 General Observations during Clean-up Process 

During the data cleaning process, we made several general observations about the data 

received. 

• Most of the data sets did not include good records/data for “Date Sample Analyzed” 

but did include good records/data for “Date Sample Collected.” 

• Date differences (between sample date and sample analysis date) of more than 10 

days appeared to be data entry errors rather than compliance violations. For example, 

dates were often a month or year different than expected. 

• Most systems serving a population of zero (0) were inactive systems. For these 

systems, data was considered for inclusion in the final dataset only for those systemmonths when the system was active. 

• Analyte/result fields are of generally very good quality and completeness. (i.e., 

sample records had results and results were coded in standard format (P or A)). 

 

 Some States provided summary total coliform data. This means that for a system with all 

negative sample results, the total number of samples taken was reported in a single record rather 

than in individual records with information on dates taken, etc. 

3.3.4 What Records to Remove 

There were several circumstances where individual records were removed from the 

databases. The following summarizes these situations. 

• Sampling Point Relative Location 

- PC (process control) – Three States (DE, IN, and NY) used this code. Each 

record with this code indicated that it was associated with a treatment plant and 

each system had many other samples labeled as being from the distribution 

system. All PC records were deleted. 

- SR (location at which untreated water is collected at the source) – Two States 

(NY and MT) used this code. In NY, each record indicated that it was associated 

with a well, and every system but one had many other samples labeled as from the 

distribution system. One system had only one other sample from an entry point 

that was also labeled CHLORINATOR. All SR records were deleted from NY. 

SR records were kept for MT because many of these samples appeared to be from 

the distribution system. 

- RW (raw water sources) – A number of States used this code. In NY, RW 

records were deleted when there was no clear indication that they were taken from 

a distribution system. All RW records were deleted from DE because other 

samples within the distribution system usually existed. RW records were deleted 

from IN when taken before any treatment. Records coded with RW in ID were 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-13 June 2010 

also coded as being wells that were not sampling locations, so ID RW records 

were deleted. Because all systems with RW records had other records labeled as 

being from the distribution system in CT, RI, MT, AK, VT, and WV, all RW 

records in these States were deleted. RW records were kept for AL because they 

appeared to be the only samples for many systems. 

- UP (unit process point) – All records with this code in all States were deleted 

since they would not be considered part of a distribution system. In addition, all 

systems with these codes had other records labeled as being from a distribution 

system. 

- WS (water system facility point) – Records with this code in all States were 

deleted when clearly labeled as being part of a treatment plant rather than a 

distribution system. 

• Presence/Absence Field 

- Records were deleted when the presence/absence field was blank. 

• Sample Type 

- Any records with sample types other than RT (routine), RP (repeat), and TR 

(temporary routine) were deleted. Records with sample type TR indicate routine 

samples that were taken at a temporary or alternate location due to inaccessibility 

to the normal routine sample location. Although it is a temporary location, TR 

samples are still collected/counted as routine samples in data analysis. 

• Source Water Type 

- Records with a blank in the source water type field that could not be filled in from 

other sources were deleted. 

• System Type 

- Records that were classified as NP (non-public) were deleted for all States. 

3.3.5 Cross-Cutting Issues 

EPA identified certain issues that were common across multiple States’ datasets. Some 

issues were addressed by further manipulation of the data, and some were reasons to exclude 

data, as described in sections 3.3.5.1 – 3.3.5.4 below. 

The listing of samples in summary form in the case of negative results was one of several 

reasons identified for missing data; data not entered, invalidated samples, samples not taken, 

and incorrect population served numbers corresponding to a given data year comprise the 

other reasons. 

In addition, many large systems have their own laboratory and do not use the State 

laboratories, and data for these large systems were not available. EPA determined that large 

systems’ data was not representative enough for use in the RTCR EA (USEPA, 200Xa), and 

instead used violations data from SDWIS for the analysis for systems serving >4,100 people. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-14 June 2010 

A last issue that EPA found in multiple states’ data was the apparent inconsistency of an 

EC- or FC-positive result coupled with a TC-negative result. EPA generally disregarded the 

EC- or FC-positive result unless it could be linked by date to a TC-positive sample, although 

there were some exceptions, as described in section 3.3.5.4 below. 

3.3.5.1 Summary Reporting 

 Some States allow systems to report negative results for a month in a summary listing of 

only the number of samples taken, rather than listing individual records for each assay. In some 

States, this only affected larger systems or certain types of systems. In other States, any system 

could file summary reports. 

 Data that was collected using the extraction tool (described in section 2.1.2) did not 

include summary reporting. Summary data was not part of the data query. The reporting of 

summary data was observed only in some of the data provided by States that did not use the 

extraction tool. In these cases, individual records were generated for the database based on how 

many samples were taken and using the first of the month as their collection date. This allowed 

these data to be compatible in form to other data (that is, there were individual records for each 

sample taken). 

3.3.5.2 Incomplete Data 

 Another issue was systems appearing to have too few records in a month given the size of 

their system. The reasons for the missing data were not investigated but were assumed to be the 

result of the following: 

• Missing records (data not entered), 

• Removed records (invalidated samples), 

• Samples not taken (monitoring violations), and 

• Incorrect population served numbers. (In most cases, the data included the population 

of the system at the time the data were extracted, but the population may have been 

smaller in 2005.) 

 The method used to address these issues was to establish a criterion for inclusion of data, 

as discussed in section 3.1. Specifically, the number of total coliform records for each system in 

each month was compared to the number of samples required under the TCR. If the number of 

records was less than 50 percent of the required number of records, that month of data was 

excluded. This criterion prevented a system that reported only total coliform positive results (no 

total coliform negative results) from skewing the system’s percentage of total coliform positives. 

It also allowed for the circumstance that some systems had grown in size since 2005 reported 

retail population served. The most extreme example of this is systems that in 2005 needed 10 

samples per month, but then grew into the next category that requires 15 samples per month (a 

50 percent increase). 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-15 June 2010 

3.3.5.3 Representativeness of Large Systems 

 In the QA check of the largest 10 systems in each State the review revealed that many 

larger systems were not included in the data submitted by the States. In some cases (such as in 

MI), only data from the State laboratory were included. Since many large systems have their 

own laboratory and do not use the State laboratories, data for these large systems were not 

available. Another reason for differences is that in a few cases States handled large systems with 

negative samples in a special way, and those data were not submitted. The end result was that 

the category of large systems had a lower percentage of systems represented in the State’s data 

than the category of smaller systems, and the data was not considered representative enough for 

use in further analysis. EPA therefore did not use the larger systems’ data in the subsequent 

Economic Analysis performed under the proposed RTCR. 

3.3.5.4 Fecal/E. coli Records 

 In the QA check of records, it was noted that some systems reported fecal coliforms or E. 

coli results even for total coliform negative assays. Fecal coliform/E. coli records were matched 

up to their total coliform sample by sample date and only those with total coliform positive 

results were included. Since so few FC assays were performed by systems, EC and FC results 

were combined into a single "fecal indicator” category, which treated EC+ and FC+ results as 

equally likely. Systems generally tested for either EC or FC, but if records included reporting 

results for both, a positive result for either was considered a positive fecal indicator result. 

 Another issue was that some fecal coliform/E. coli records did not have a corresponding 

total coliform record. In Michigan, it was concluded after consultation with State staff that when 

a fecal coliform/E. coli result is shown, there is an implied total coliform positive result. In this 

case, total coliform positive records were added to the database of useable data. 

3.4 Field Names 

 For the States that did not use the SDWIS extraction tool, the data element field names 

did not always match the data element field names used in the final data sets for the States that 

used the Extraction Tool. Where appropriate, the data element fields were renamed for the final 

dataset. Details about the final format for individual States can be found in Appendices A and 

B. Only data from 2005 have been retained in the final dataset. 

3.5 Additional QA Checks 

 In order to model both total coliform (TC) and E. coli (EC) occurrence in the distribution 

system, we needed, for each system, a count of the total numbers of routine (NRT) samples that 

were tested for TC (NRTTC) and found positive for TC (KRTTC). We also needed the number 

of TC positive samples that were also tested for the fecal indicator (FI), E. coli, or fecal 

coliforms (NRTFI) and found positive (KRTFI). We needed the same information for repeat 

(RP) samples, i.e. using the same abbreviations the number of samples (N), fecal indicator (FI), 

and number of positives (K) for number of samples and K for number of positives the data was 

analyzed NRPTC, KRPTC, NRPFI, and KRPFI. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-16 June 2010 

 Because negative TC samples are negative for fecal indicators EC and FC, some of these 

negative TC samples that also produced database records for EC and/or FC were deleted (as 

discussed in 3.3.5.4 ). Ideally, EC and FC records would have been produced only for TCpositive samples that were then assayed for the fecal indicator. EPA also learned that some 

authorities (state and tribal authorities) recorded all fecal indicator records as FC, even though 

the great majority of assays were actually EC. A set of “rules” was developed to identify, for 

each system and each date that the system collected samples, the number of TC positive samples 

that were actually assayed for a fecal indicator and the number of these that were positive for the 

fecal indicator. When both EC and FC results were reported for the same sample, we selected 

the EC result. 

The following are the rules that were applied: 

1. If KRTTC = NRTEC, then all is well. Let NRTFI = NRTEC and let KRTFI = 

KRTEC. 

2. If KRTTC = NRTFC, then all is well, too. We'll use the FC data: Let NRTFI = 

NRTFC and KRTFI = KRTFC. 

 Rules 1 and 2 above will apply to most routine sample dates. The rules will probably not 

apply to as many repeat sample dates. The rules below only apply to systems not addressed by 1 

and 2. 

3. If NRTTC = NRTEC, then the system entered EC records for TC negatives. Let 

NRTFI = KRTTC and KRTFI = KRTEC. 

4. Similarly, for FC, if NRTTC = NRTFC, then let NRTFI = KRTTC and KRTFI = 

KRTFC. 

 Rules 3 and 4 will take care of some of the sample dates not addressed by 1 and 2. The 

rules below only apply to systems not addressed by 1 through 4 above. 

5. If KRTTC = NRTEC+NRTFC, then each TC+ was assayed by either EC or FC (not 

both). Let NRTFI = NRTEC+NRTFC and let KRTFI = KRTEC+KRTFC. 

6. If NRTTC = NRTEC+NRTFC, then each TC- produced a record for either EC or FC 

(not both). Let NRTFI = KRTTC and let KRTFI = KRTEC+KRTFC. 

The rules that follow only apply to sample dates not addressed above. 

7. If NRTEC > KRTTC, then let NRTFI = min(NRTEC, KRTTC) (let NRTFI = 

KRTTC because "NRTEC > KRTTC" is the pre-condition) and KRTFI = KRTEC 

(Check to be sure KRTFI is not greater than NRTFI.) 

8. If NRTEC = 0, but NRTFC>KRTTC, then let NRTFI = min(NRTFC, KRTTC) (let 

NRTFI = KRTTC because "NRTEC > KRTTC" is the pre-condition) and KRTFI = 

KRTFC (Check to be sure KRTFI is not greater than NRTFI.) 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

3-17 June 2010 

The rules below only applies to sample dates not addressed above. 

9. Many of those which remain will have missing EC and FC records (monitoring 

violations). If NRTEC>0, then let NRTFI = NRTEC and let KRTFI = KRTEC. 

 

10. If NRTEC = 0, but NRTFC>0, then let NRTFI = NRTFC and KRTFI = KRTFC. 

 Other. The remaining sample dates may be all (or mostly) cases where 

NRTEC=NRTFC=0. In these cases, let NRTFI=0 and KRTFI=0. 

 Exhibit 3.5 below shows how often each of the above rules was applied. Note that Rules 

1 and 2 applied to 99.5 percent of the routine data and 97 percent of the repeat data. 

Exhibit 3.5 Application of Rules 

Rule Number #RT Sys*Dates %RT Sys*Dates #RP Sys*Dates %RP Sys*Dates

1 631,276 93% 19,283 86% 

2 44,191 6.5 2,512 11 

3 510 0.08 292 1.3 

4 121 0.018 43 0.19 

5 10 0.0015 5 0.022 

6 0 0 0 0 

7 10 0.0015 14 0.062 

8 5 0.00047 4 0.018 

9 6 0.00089 10 0.044 

10 798 0.12 87 0.39 

Other 1,029 0.15 279 1.2 

Total 677,956 100% 22,529 100% 

 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

4-1 June 2010 

4.0 Clean-up as On-going Process 

EPA used the cleaned dataset to develop a distributional analysis of TC and fecal 

indicator positives. Further modification of the data for the purpose of performing the 

distributional analysis is described in section 5.2 of the RTCR EA. 
Appendix A 

Summary of Data from States Using the Extraction Tool: 

State-by-State Breakout 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-i June 2010 

Contents 

A.1 ALASKA ......................................................................................................................... A-4

A.2 ARIZONA........................................................................................................................ A-6

A.3 COLORADO ................................................................................................................... A-7

A.4 CONNECTICUT ............................................................................................................. A-9

A.5 DELAWARE ................................................................................................................. A-11

A.6 GEORGIA...................................................................................................................... A-12

A.7 IDAHO ........................................................................................................................... A-14

A.8 INDIANA ...................................................................................................................... A-16

A.9 IOWA ............................................................................................................................. A-17

A.10    KANSAS ....................................................................................................................... A-19

A.11    KENTUCKY ................................................................................................................. A-21

A.12    MONTANA ................................................................................................................... A-22

A.13    NEBRASKA .................................................................................................................. A-24

A.14    NEVADA ...................................................................................................................... A-26

A.15    NEW MEXICO ............................................................................................................. A-27

A.16    NEW YORK .................................................................................................................. A-29

A.17    NORTH CAROLINA .................................................................................................... A-31

A.18    NORTH DAKOTA ........................................................................................................ A-32

A.19    OKLAHOMA ................................................................................................................ A-34

A.22    UTAH ............................................................................................................................ A-39

A.23    VERMONT .................................................................................................................... A-41

A.24    WEST VIRGINIA ......................................................................................................... A-42

A.25    WYOMING ................................................................................................................... A-44

A.26    REGION 8 TRIBAL ...................................................................................................... A-46
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-1 June 2010 

 

For each State that used the SDWIS Extraction Tool, below is a description of the data, a 

narrative of the issues, summary of the correspondence with the State, inventory comparison, 

total number of records, and any QA issues. The inventory comparisons are based on the data in 

the final 37-State dataset and SDWIS-FED (4th Q, 2005). The final dataset is based on applying 

the 50 percent criterion and other corrections that were made (primarily in the format of the data 

to ensure consistency in analysis). 

 This appendix looks specifically at the data quality and representativeness, primarily as 

compared to the data in SDWIS-FED, but also with regard to internal consistency in the State 

data. Noting differences between the State data and SDWIS-FED does not imply that changes 

were necessarily made to the State data, but the differences allowed EPA to gauge the coverage 

and completeness of the State data, their consistency with SDWIS-FED, and the internal 

consistency within the State dataset. Where changes were made to the data, those changes are 

noted. 

 For example, the State-reported populations of the 10 largest systems in each State were 

compared to the data in SDWIS-FED. In some cases, EPA found that several of the largest 

systems were not in the State-reported data, or that the numbers appeared to differ by small or 

larger amounts. Differences in quantities are noted, but were not explored or “corrected” 

(without research, it was unclear which figure might be the more correct). 

 Before beginning the State-by-State summaries, a few exhibits are presented that apply to 

all states. The descriptive data element exhibits (Exhibits A.1 – A.3) apply to each State that 

used the SDWIS Extraction Tool. As discussed in Chapter 3, fields that were unnecessary in the 

final dataset were removed. For reference, the 14 data element fields that were unnecessary and 

removed are defined in the Exhibit A.1. 

Exhibit A.1 Removed Data Element Fields 

Removed Data Element Field Name Removed Data Element Field Definition 

ST_ASGN_IDENT_CD A State-assigned value which identifies the system facility 

TINWSF_NAME The name of the water system facility 

LD_CP_TIER_LEV_TXT 

If valued 1, 2, or 3, and TSASMPPT_TYPE_CODE = DS, then 

represents Tap. IF TSASMPPT_TYPE_CODE <> DS, then 

probably represents Source 

COMPL_PURP_IND_CD 

When selected in the sample record, the sample and its results 

will be used (by any automated software) in the determination 

of compliance for that sample. Samples not selected will not be 

used in any compliance determination. 

LESS_THAN_IND 

Binary indication of whether the result is “less than” the Lab 

Reporting Limit or “less than” the Regulatory Minimum 

Reporting Limit 

LESS_THAN_CODE 

When valued, indicates that the analytical result (concentration) 

was below the Regulatory Minimum Reporting Level or below 

the Laboratory Reporting Level (which in turn must be at or 

below the regulated MCL for the analyte) 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-2 June 2010 

Removed Data Element Field Name Removed Data Element Field Definition 

DETECTN_LIMIT_NUM 

The limit established by the laboratory below which 

scientifically reliable results cannot be achieved. In many 

cases, if the computed detection limit is below the Method 

Detection Limit, then the Method Detection Limit is used as the 

detection limit; if the computed detection limit is above the 

Method Detection Limit, then the detection limit is used. 

DETECTN_LIMIT_UOM_CD Standard Unit of Measure for DETECTN_LIMIT_NUM 

REPORTED_MSR 

The actual reported measure of a chemical/rad/water quality 

result. This measure is captured as text in order to preserve the 

trailing zeros which indicate the precision of the measure. The 

text value is also converted to a number and stored in the 

SBS_SAR Concentration_Measure attribute. 

CONCENTRATION_MSR A numeric value that represents the result obtained from a 

sample analysis 

UOM_CODE Standard Unit of Measure 

COUNT_QTY 

The number of organisms counted or estimated in a 

microbiological sample. Usually expressed as “# of colonies per 

100 milliliter sample.” 

COUNT_TYPE 

Type of microbiological unit that is being counted per specified 

count unit. Count type varies with the microbiological organism 

where count has been recorded 

COUNT_UOM_CODE The units of measure associated with the microbial analytical 

result count 

 

 There were 33 original data element fields; the final dataset uses 19 data element fields 

that are defined in Exhibit A.2. 

Exhibit A.2 Final Data Element Fields Retained for TCR Analysis 

Original Data Element Field Name Data Element Field Definition 

NUMBER0 Uniquely identifies the water system within a specific State. Ex. 

DC1234567 

NAME 

The name of the water system. The name can be the formal, 

legal, or common name that is used most generally in referring 

to the water system 

D_PWS_FED_TYPE_CD A SDWIS/State system-generated coded value which classifies 

the water system according to federal requirements. 

D_POPULATION_COUNT A SDWIS/State system-generated count of the total population 

served by a water system. 

D_FED_PRIM_SRC_CD A SDWIS/State system-generated coded value which classifies 

the water system according to federal requirements. 

TSASMPPT_IS_NUMBER 

A SDWIS/State system-generated value which, in conjunction 

with at least one other attribute or relationship (State Code), 

uniquely identifies the entity occurrence. 

TSASMPPT_TYPE_CODE 

The coded value that represents the location type of a sampling 

point. E.g. Unit Process, Water System Facility, and/or 

Distribution System. 

SOURCE_TYPE_CD The type of water source, based on whether treatment has 

taken place. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-3 June 2010 

Original Data Element Field Name Data Element Field Definition 

IDENTIFICATION_CD 

The unique code for identifying a water system facility sample 

point. This value must be unique within the Water System 

Facility. 

DESCRIPTION_TEXT A description of the sampling point. 

LAB_ASSGND_ID_NUM The sample identification number assigned by the laboratory 

for tracking the sample within the lab. 

COLLLECTION_END_DT Used in most cases as the Sample Collection Date 

ANALYSIS_COMPL_DT The date the laboratory completed the analysis of a sample. 

TSASMPL_TYPE_CODE The type of sample 

REPEAT_LOC_TYP_CD The location of the repeat/check/confirmation sample with 

respect to the location of the original sample. 

TSASMN_CODE 

A code value that represents the method that was used to 

analyze the sample (e.g., EPA assigned method code). Ex. 

EPA 525.1 

TSAANLYT_NAME The common name of a contaminant as used by States and 

EPA in the rules and other documents. 

TSAANLYT_CODE 

The standard code used by EPA and the States to represent 

analytes in the national database. Each analyte has a unique 

code assigned to it for reference in compliance determination. 

PRESENCE_IND_CODE 

Indicates whether results of an analysis were positive (P – 

Presence) or negative (A – Absence). Indication of presence or 

absence creates an analytical result for a specific analyte. 

 

 The original data field names were replaced with more “user-friendly” field names to 

decrease confusion and provide a more informative title for the data in the each field. Exhibit 

A.3 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element field names and the final data 

element field names. 

Exhibit A.3 Data Element Field Names – Original vs. Final 

Original Data Element Field 

Name Final Data Element Field Name 

NUMBER0 PWSID_Number 

NAME PWSID_Name 

D_PWS_FED_TYPE_CD System_Type 

D_POPULATION_COUNT Population_Served 

D_FED_PRIM_SRC_CD Source_Water 

TSASMPPT_IS_NUMBER Sampling_Point_Number 

TSASMPPT_TYPE_CODE Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

SOURCE_TYPE_CODE Source_Water_Treatment 

IDENTIFICATION_CD Facility_ID_Number 

DESCRIPTION_TEXT Sampling_Point_Text 

LAB_ASGND_ID_NUM Lab_Sample_Number 

COLLLECTION_END_DT Date_Sample_Taken 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-4 June 2010 

Original Data Element Field 

Name Final Data Element Field Name 

ANALYSIS_COMPL_DT Date_Sample_Analyzed 

TSASAMPL_TYPE_CODE Sample_Type 

REPEAT_LOC_TYP_CD Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

TSASMN_CODE Analytical_Method 

TSAANLYT_NAME Analyte_Name 

TSAANLYT_CODE Analyte_Code 

PRESENCE_IND_CODE Presence_Absence_Result 

 A.1 ALASKA 

A.1.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above (Exhibits A-1 through A3) for a list of kept data element fields, a list of 

removed data element fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data 

element field names compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The State did not provide data for “Date Sample Analyzed”; no date difference 

comparison could be completed. The majority of “Sample Point Relative Location” data 

elements were not provided. The majority of the repeat sample records had no data for “Repeat 

Sample Relative Location.” The majority of records do not have data for “Analytical Method.” 

The population reported in SDWIS/Fed for PWS AK2210906 (one of the ten largest PWSs in the 

State) does not closely match the population data in SDWIS/State. 

A.1.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.4 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-5 June 2010 

Exhibit A.4 Alaska – Number of Systems by Population Served and System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1,526 1,469 3% 

<101 TNCWS 619 581 6% 

<101 NTNCWS 108 106 2% 

<101 CWS 160 152 5% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 234 231 1% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 94 103 -10% 

101 to 500 CWS 175 177 -1% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 9 13 -44% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 16 15 6% 

501 to 1000 CWS 58 53 9% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 5 6 -20% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 6 5 17% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 22 20 9% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 17 6 65% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 1 0 100% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 1 0 100% 

A.1.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Alaska: 

 

The total number of samples included is 12,066. 

The total number of routine samples included is 11,276. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 11,091. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 185. 

A.1.4 QA Issues 

 Records with RW and WS (when clearly labeled as being part of a treatment plant rather 

than a distribution system) were deleted from “Sampling Point Relative Location” data element 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-6 June 2010 

field. Records that had NP (non-public) data elements in System Type field were deleted. 

A.2 ARIZONA 

A.2.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 A few of the “Date Sample Analyzed” records had no data; a date difference comparison 

was completed for available data. Some records in 2005 had date differences (between sample 

date and sample analysis date) of 10 days or more. Some of the “Analytical Method” records 

had no data. 

A.2.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.5 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.5 Arizona – Number of Systems by Population Served and System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1607 1,478 8% 

<101 TNCWS 350 313 11% 

<101 NTNCWS 87 78 10% 

<101 CWS 201 181 10% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 210 204 3% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 75 69 8% 

101 to 500 CWS 282 272 4% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 24 25 -4% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 23 24 -4% 

501 to 1000 CWS 86 96 -12% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 17 15 12% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 20 19 5% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-7 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

1001 to 4100 CWS 127 119 6% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 80 56 30% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 1 0 100% 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 14 2 86% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 9 4 56% 

A.2.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Arizona: 

 The total number of samples included in is 40,966. 

The total number of routine samples included is 38,532. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 37,720. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 812. 

A.2.4 QA Issues 

 Records that had data element SP in the “Sample Type” data element field did not fit the 

pattern of identification for RT (routine) or RP (repeat) samples, and represented less than 0.1% 

of the sample records; these were deleted. Records that had NP (non-public) data elements in the 

“System Type” field were also deleted. 

A.3 COLORADO 

A.3.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-8 June 2010 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The majority of records do not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data; a date difference 

comparison was completed with available data. Some records in 2005 had date differences 

(between sample date and sample analysis date) of 10 days or more. The majority of repeat 

sample records do not have “Repeat Sample Relative Location” data. The majority of records do 

not have “Analytical Method” data. 

A.3.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.6 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.6 Colorado – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1,978 1,804 9% 

<101 TNCWS 519 485 7% 

<101 NTNCWS 55 48 13% 

<101 CWS 216 194 10% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 372 355 5% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 76 76 0% 

101 to 500 CWS 274 277 -1% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 44 40 9% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 16 18 -13% 

501 to 1000 CWS 89 88 1% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 34 33 3% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 11 12 -9% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 137 127 7% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 8 3 63% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 2 1 50% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 98 45 54% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 18 2 89% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 9 0 100% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-9 June 2010 

A.3.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Colorado: 

The total number of samples included is 24,100.

The total number of routine samples included is 23,291. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 23,075. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 216. 

A.3.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data elements were deleted. 

The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.4 CONNECTICUT 

A.4.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Many records do not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data; a date difference comparison 

was completed on available data. Some records in 2005 had date differences (between sample 

date and sample analysis date) of 10 days or more. Some of repeat sample records do not have 

“Repeat Sample Relative Location” data. The majority of records do not have “Analytical 

Method” data. 

A.4.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.7 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-10 June 2010 

Exhibit A.7 Connecticut – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 2,881 2,800 3% 

<101 TNCWS 1,620 1,532 5% 

<101 NTNCWS 401 409 -2% 

<101 CWS 228 218 4% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 35 35 0% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 223 163 27% 

101 to 500 CWS 259 240 7% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 8 7 13% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 12 61 -408% 

501 to 1000 CWS 38 30 21% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 1 1 0% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 0 13 

1001 to 4100 CWS 3 42 -1300% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 31 35 -13% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 17 11 35% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 5 3 40% 

A.4.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Connecticut: 

The total number of samples included is 37,685. 

The total number of routine samples included is 33,357. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 32,406. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 951. 

A.4.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data elements were deleted. 

Records with RW, WS (when clearly labeled as being part of a treatment plant rather than a 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-11 June 2010 

distribution system), and UP were deleted from “Sampling Point Relative Location” data 

element field. The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were 

deleted. 

A.5 DELAWARE 

A.5.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The majority of records do not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data; a date difference 

comparison was completed for available data. Some records in 2005 had date differences 

(between sample date and sample analysis date) of 10 days or more. DE0000221 is not included 

in the 10 largest systems in the SDWIS data. The majority of records do not have “Analytical 

Method” data. 

A.5.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.8 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.8 Delaware – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 515 520 -1% 

<101 TNCWS 83 87 -5% 

<101 NTNCWS 57 60 -5% 

<101 CWS 59 53 10% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 77 78 -1% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 35 35 0% 

101 to 500 CWS 89 93 -4% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-12 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 20 20 0% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 6 6 0% 

501 to 1000 CWS 21 23 -10% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 8 8 0% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 8 7 13% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 28 29 -4% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 17 17 0% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 3 2 33% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 3 1 67% 

A.5.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Delaware: 

The total number of samples included is 8,049. 

The total number of routine samples included is 7,523. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 7,271. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 252. 

A.5.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. Records 

with RW, WS (when clearly labeled as being part of a treatment plant rather than a distribution 

system), and PC were deleted from “Sampling Point Relative Location” data element field. The 

records that had NP data elements (non-public) in System Type field were deleted. 

A.6 GEORGIA 

A.6.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-13 June 2010 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Incomplete data was submitted for “Date Sample Analyzed”; a date difference 

comparison was completed for available data. A few records in 2005 had date differences 

(between sample date and sample analysis date) of 10 days or more. The majority of records do 

not have “Analytical Method” data. 

A.6.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.9 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.9 Georgia – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 2,464 2,360 4% 

<101 TNCWS 327 319 2% 

<101 NTNCWS 96 98 -2% 

<101 CWS 598 583 3% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 185 184 1% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 87 92 -6% 

101 to 500 CWS 572 582 -2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 29 26 10% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 33 32 3% 

501 to 1000 CWS 140 141 -1% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 2 2 0% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 11 13 -18% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 209 202 3% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 1 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 139 85 39% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 23 0 100% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 13 0 100% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-14 June 2010 

A.6.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Georgia: 

The total number of samples included is 37,032. 

The total number of routine samples included is 35,131. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 34,646. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 485. 

A.6.4 QA Issues 

 The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.7 IDAHO 

A.7.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The majority of records have do not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data; a date difference 

comparison was completed for available data. No records in 2005 had date differences of 10 

days or more. The majority of records do not have “Sampling Point Relative Location” data. 

The majority of records do not have “Analytical Method” data. A few large systems have large 

population discrepancies between the State dataset and 2005 SDWIS. 

A.7.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.10 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-15 June 2010 

Exhibit A.10 Idaho – Number of Systems by Population Served and System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 2,015 1,942 4% 

<101 TNCWS 799 754 6% 

<101 NTNCWS 132 116 12% 

<101 CWS 362 360 1% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 208 205 1% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 84 78 7% 

101 to 500 CWS 229 225 2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 18 18 0% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 18 22 -22% 

501 to 1000 CWS 60 58 3% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 5 5 0% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 6 6 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 56 56 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 31 31 0% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 5 7 -40% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 1 1 0% 

A.7.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Idaho: 

The total number of samples included is 30,620. 

The total number of routine samples included is 28,202. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 27,489. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 713. 

A.7.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records 

with RW, WS (when clearly labeled as being part of a treatment plant rather than a distribution 

system), and UP were deleted from “Sampling Point Relative Location” data element field. The 

records that had NP data elements (non-public) in System Type field were deleted. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-16 June 2010 

A.8 INDIANA 

A.8.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Many records do not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data; a date difference comparison 

was completed for available data. For dates that could be compared, no 2005 data had date 

discrepancies of greater than 10 days. Many repeat sample records do not have “Repeat Sample 

Relative Location” data elements. The majority of records do not have “Analytical Method” 

data elements. 

A.8.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.11 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.11 Indiana – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 4,407 4,417 -0.2% 

<101 TNCWS 1,980 2,036 -3% 

<101 NTNCWS 300 315 -5% 

<101 CWS 164 175 -7% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 758 720 5% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 233 241 -3% 

101 to 500 CWS 151 147 3% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 131 134 -2% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 116 115 1% 

501 to 1000 CWS 132 128 3% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-17 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 25 27 -8% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 26 28 -8% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 213 217 -2% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 155 133 14% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 18 1 94% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 5 0 100% 

A.8.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Indiana: 

The total number of samples included is 53,911. 

The total number of routine samples included is 49,357. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 48,298. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 1,059. 

A.8.4 QA Issues 

 The records with RW (when sample taken before any treatment) and PC were deleted 

from “Sampling Point Relative Location” data element field. The records that had NP data 

elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.9 IOWA 

A.9.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-18 June 2010 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The State did not provide data for “Date Sample Analyzed”; no date difference 

comparison could be completed. Only a few records do not have “Analytical Method” data 

elements. 

A.9.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.12 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.12 Iowa – Number of Systems by Population Served and System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1,991 1,999 -0.4% 

<101 TNCWS 510 497 3% 

<101 NTNCWS 63 60 5% 

<101 CWS 210 211 0% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 176 192 -9% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 49 49 0% 

101 to 500 CWS 408 410 0% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 21 19 10% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 14 15 -7% 

501 to 1000 CWS 199 200 -1% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 6 8 -33% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 13 13 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 216 220 -2% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 1 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 94 91 3% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 8 10 -25% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 3 3 0% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-19 June 2010 

A.9.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Iowa: 

The total number of samples included is 53,560.

The total number of routine samples included is 51,573. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 50,740. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 833. 

A.9.4 QA Issues 

 The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.10 KANSAS 

A.10.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 In January of 2008, Kansas was contacted to provide their data. Once the data had been 

submitted later that month, no further correspondence with the State was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 No significant issues. 

A.10.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.13 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-20 June 2010 

Exhibit A.13 Kansas – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1,055 1,010 4% 

<101 TNCWS 95 82 14% 

<101 NTNCWS 27 22 19% 

<101 CWS 132 116 12% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 5 8 -60% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 14 17 -21% 

101 to 500 CWS 347 346 0% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 0 0 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 3 3 0% 

501 to 1000 CWS 144 135 6% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 5 5 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 216 215 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 56 57 -2% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 6 4 33% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 5 0 100% 

A.10.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Kansas: 

The total number of samples included is 34,774.

The total number of routine samples included is 33,977. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 33,741. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 236. 

A.10.4 QA Issues 

 No significant issues. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-21 June 2010 

A.11 KENTUCKY 

A.11.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 State did not provide any fecal data. The majority of records do not have “Date Sample 

Analyzed” data elements; a date difference comparison was completed for available data. The 

majority of records that had date differences (between sample date and sample analysis date) of 

10 days or more are records from 2005. Some large systems have population discrepancies. A 

few repeat sample records do not have data elements for “Repeat Sample Relative Location.” A 

few records do not have “Analytical Method” data elements. 

A.11.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.14 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.14 Kentucky – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 518 500 3% 

<101 TNCWS 37 34 8% 

<101 NTNCWS 17 14 18% 

<101 CWS 14 12 14% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 25 24 4% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 15 13 13% 

101 to 500 CWS 28 24 14% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 3 4 -33% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-22 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

501 to 1000 CWS 24 21 13% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 5 5 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 132 128 3% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 199 202 -2% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 15 16 -7% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 3 3 0% 

A.11.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Kentucky 

The total number of samples included is 56,564.

The total number of routine samples included is 55,943. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 55,744. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 199. 

A.11.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records 

that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.12 MONTANA 

A.12.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-23 June 2010 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The majority of records do not have “Analytical Method” data elements. Only a few 

repeat sample records do not have “Repeat Sample Relative Location” data elements. The 

majority of records do not have Date Sample Analyzed data; date difference comparison was 

completed for available data. Very few records from 2005 had date differences (between sample 

date and sample analysis date) of 10 days or more. 

A.12.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.15 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.15 Montana – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 2,060 1,976 4% 

<101 TNCWS 768 711 7% 

<101 NTNCWS 97 103 -6% 

<101 CWS 286 262 8% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 334 323 3% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 110 113 -3% 

101 to 500 CWS 260 253 3% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 39 41 -5% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 6 10 -67% 

501 to 1000 CWS 52 48 8% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 18 19 -6% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 6 10 -67% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 55 56 -2% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 23 22 4% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 4 4 0% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 0 0 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-24 June 2010 

A.12.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Montana: 

The total number of samples included is 30,547.

The total number of routine samples included is 28,847. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 28,192. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 655. 

A.12.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. Unlike other 

States with data element SR in “Sampling Point Relative Location” field, SR data was kept for 

Montana. The records with RW data element in “Sampling Point Relative Location” field were 

deleted. The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were 

deleted. 

A.13 NEBRASKA 

A.13.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Many records do not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data; a date difference comparison 

was completed for available data. Many records from 2005 had date differences (between 

sample date and sample analysis date) of 10 days or more. Some records do not have 

“Analytical Method” data elements. 

A.13.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.16 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-25 June 2010 

Exhibit A.16 Nebraska – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1,344 1,390 -3% 

<101 TNCWS 417 458 -10% 

<101 NTNCWS 112 109 3% 

<101 CWS 81 81 0% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 122 126 -3% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 55 58 -5% 

101 to 500 CWS 290 289 0% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 17 18 -6% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 6 8 -33% 

501 to 1000 CWS 100 102 -2% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 2 1 50% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 10 9 10% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 96 96 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 2 2 0% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 31 31 0% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 1 1 0% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 2 1 50% 

A.13.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Nebraska: 

The total number of samples included is 26,938. 

The total number of routine samples included is 24,297. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 23,664. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 633. 

A.13.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records 

with WS data elements in “Sampling Point Relative Location” field were deleted. Records that 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-26 June 2010 

had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.14 NEVADA 

A.14.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The State did not provide data for “Date Sample Analyzed”; no date difference 

comparison could be completed. Only a few repeat sample records do not have data elements in 

“Repeat Sample Relative Location” field. The majority of records do not have data elements in 

“Analytical Method” field. 

A.14.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.17 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.17 Nevada – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 597 501 16% 

<101 TNCWS 213 189 11% 

<101 NTNCWS 47 41 13% 

<101 CWS 90 63 30% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 31 21 32% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 51 43 16% 

101 to 500 CWS 66 56 15% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 5 5 0% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 6 5 17% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-27 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

501 to 1000 CWS 17 17 0% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 3 2 33% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 2 5 -150% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 34 31 9% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 1 100% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 27 22 19% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 1 0 100% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 4 0 100% 

A.14.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Nevada: 

The total number of samples included is 8,544.

The total number of routine samples included is 8,016. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 7,822. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 194. 

A.14.4 QA Issues 

 The records that have RW data elements were deleted from “Sampling Point Relative 

Location” field. The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field 

were deleted. 

A.15 NEW MEXICO 

A.15.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-28 June 2010 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

The majority of records do not have data in “Date Sample Analyzed” field; a date difference 

comparison was completed for available data. A few records from 2005 had date differences 

(between sample date and sample analysis date) of 10 days or more. The majority of repeat 

sample records do not have data elements in “Repeat Sample Relative Location” field. Some 

records do not have data in the “Analytical Method” field. 

A.15.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.18 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.18 New Mexico – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1,273 1,180 7% 

<101 TNCWS 320 264 18% 

<101 NTNCWS 83 75 10% 

<101 CWS 208 190 9% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 129 127 2% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 48 52 -8% 

101 to 500 CWS 249 245 2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 12 10 17% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 15 12 20% 

501 to 1000 CWS 56 52 7% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 12 11 8% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 7 8 -14% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 79 81 -3% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 2 1 50% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 47 45 4% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 5 6 -20% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 1 1 0% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-29 June 2010 

A.15.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for New Mexico: 

The total number of samples included is 26,416. 

The total number of routine samples included is 24,511. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 24,053. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 458. 

A.15.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records 

that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.16 NEW YORK 

A.16.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Some records do not have PWSID in correct format (e.g., DC1234567). Most records do 

not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data elements; a date difference comparison was completed 

for available data. Of those records that could be compared, no 2005 records had date 

differences of 10 days or more. Some repeat sample records do not have data elements in 

“Repeat Sample Relative Location” field. Most records do not have data elements in “Analytical 

Method” field. 

A.16.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.19 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-30 June 2010 

Exhibit A.19 New York – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 9,855 7,066 28% 

<101 TNCWS 4,680 3,653 22% 

<101 NTNCWS 331 252 24% 

<101 CWS 1,008 577 43% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 1,437 1,076 25% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 268 206 23% 

101 to 500 CWS 876 580 34% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 114 94 18% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 101 73 28% 

501 to 1000 CWS 267 195 27% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 43 28 35% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 48 43 10% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 380 227 40% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 14 3 79% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 6 1 83% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 227 57 75% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 1 0 100% 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 31 1 97% 

>96,000 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 21 0 100% 

A.16.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for New York: 

The total number of samples is 59,336.

The total number of routine samples included is 56,644. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 55,532. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 1,112. 

A.16.4 QA Issues 

 The records that had PWSID in incorrect format were either removed (i.e., test site that 

should not be used) or formatted correctly. The records that did not have “Presence Absence 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-31 June 2010 

Result” data were deleted. The records with RW (when there was no clear indication that they 

were taken from a distribution system), WS (when clearly labeled as being part of a treatment 

plant rather than a distribution system), PC, SR, and UP were deleted from “Sampling Point 

Relative Location” data element field. The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in 

“System Type” field were deleted. 

A.17 NORTH CAROLINA 

A.17.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Most records have “Date Sample Analyzed” data elements; a date difference comparison 

was completed for available data. Of dates that could be compared, all date differences of 10 

days or more are records from 2005. The State only submitted data for community water 

systems. 

A.17.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.20 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.20 North Carolina – Number of Systems by Population Served and 

System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 6,947 2,056 70% 

<101 TNCWS 3,457 0 100% 

<101 NTNCWS 275 0 100% 

<101 CWS 822 773 6% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 717 0 100% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 261 0 100% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-32 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

101 to 500 CWS 751 773 -3% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 33 0 100% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 20 0 100% 

501 to 1000 CWS 164 165 -1% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 5 0 100% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 1 0 100% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 219 204 7% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 190 138 27% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 20 3 85% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 11 0 100% 

A.17.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for North Carolina: 

 The total number of samples included in is 12,226.

The total number of routine samples included is 12,016. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 11,944. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 72. 

A.17.4 QA Issues 

 No QA issues were encountered for North Carolina data. Data was clean and complete. 

A.18 NORTH DAKOTA 

A.18.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-33 June 2010 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The State did not provide data for “Date Sample Analyzed”; no date difference 

comparison could be completed. Some records do not have “Analytical Method” data elements. 

A.18.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.21 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.21 North Dakota – Number of Systems by Population Served and 

System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 515 519 -0.8% 

<101 TNCWS 141 141 0% 

<101 NTNCWS 14 17 -21% 

<101 CWS 61 61 0% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 23 24 -4% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 10 9 10% 

101 to 500 CWS 132 132 0% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 3 3 0% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 1 2 -100% 

501 to 1000 CWS 51 51 0% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 0 0 

1001 to 4100 CWS 61 61 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 14 14 0% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 4 4 0% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 0 0 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-34 June 2010 

A.18.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for North Dakota: 

 The total number of samples included is 11,367. 

The total number of routine samples included is 10,970. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 10,858. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 112. 

A.18.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records 

that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.19 OKLAHOMA 

A.19.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Most records had Date Sample Analyzed data elements; a date difference comparison 

was completed for available data. Some records from 2005 had date differences (between 

sample date and sample analysis date) of 10 days or more. Only a few repeat sample records do 

not have data elements in the “Repeat Sample Relative Location” field. Only a few records do 

not have “Analytical Method” data. 

A.19.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.22 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-35 June 2010 

Exhibit A.22 Oklahoma – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1,608 1,469 9% 

<101 TNCWS 309 274 11% 

<101 NTNCWS 59 56 5% 

<101 CWS 180 145 19% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 48 43 10% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 45 42 7% 

101 to 500 CWS 403 353 12% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 6 6 0% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 6 8 -33% 

501 to 1000 CWS 189 154 19% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 2 2 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 251 280 -12% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 96 94 2% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 10 10 0% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 4 2 50% 

A.19.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Oklahoma: 

 The total number of samples included is 48,694. 

The total number of routine samples included is 45,552. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 44,829 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 723. 

A.19.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records 

that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-36 June 2010 

A.20 OREGON 

A.20.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Most records do not have data elements for “Date Sample Analyzed” field; date 

difference comparison was completed for available data. Many repeat sample records do not 

have data elements in “Repeat Sample Relative Location” field. The State did not provide and 

data elements for the “Analytical Method” field. 

A.20.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.23 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.23 Oregon – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 2,644 2,602 2% 

<101 TNCWS 957 938 2% 

<101 NTNCWS 177 169 5% 

<101 CWS 328 316 4% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 400 387 3% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 132 140 -6% 

101 to 500 CWS 284 291 -2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 54 52 4% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 21 19 10% 

501 to 1000 CWS 60 56 7% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 19 19 0% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-37 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 9 9 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 109 110 -1% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 75 76 -1% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 15 16 -7% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 4 4 0% 

A.20.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Oregon: 

 The total number of samples included is 61,033. 

The total number of routine samples included is 57,882. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 57,158. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 724. 

A.20.4 QA Issues 

 The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.21 RHODE ISLAND 

A.21.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 No correspondence was necessary. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-38 June 2010 

Narrative of Issues 

 Most records do not have data elements for “Date Sample Analyzed” field; a date 

difference comparison was completed for available data. Of those records that could be 

compared, no 2005 records had date differences of 10 days or more. Only a few repeat sample 

records do not have data elements in “Repeat Sample Relative Location” field. Only a few 

records do not have data elements in “Analytical Method” field. State submitted TC+, TC 

repeats, and Fecal and E. coli tests, but no TC- routine samples. A large system (Pawtucket) 

only has negative TCR samples in 2005. 

A.21.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.24 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.24 Rhode Island – Number of Systems by Population Served and 

System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 475 459 3% 

<101 TNCWS 169 173 -2% 

<101 NTNCWS 32 35 -9% 

<101 CWS 21 23 -10% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 133 132 1% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 31 31 0% 

101 to 500 CWS 25 23 8% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 8 8 0% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 7 7 0% 

501 to 1000 CWS 4 3 25% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 4 4 0% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 6 6 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 11 8 27% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 0 100% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 14 6 57% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 7 0 100% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 2 0 100% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-39 June 2010 

A.21.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Rhode Island: 

 The total number of samples included is 3,980. 

The total number of routine samples included is 3,462. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 3,301. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 161. 

A.21.4 QA Issues 

 The records with RW and WS (when clearly labeled as being part of a treatment plant 

rather than a distribution system) were deleted from “Sampling Point Relative Location” data 

element field. The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were 

deleted. 

A.22 UTAH 

A.22.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The State did not provide data for “Date Sample Analyzed”; no date difference 

comparison could be completed. The State did not provide EC data. 

 Note that Utah’s Federal PWSIDs begin with the entire State name rather than the two 

letter acronym (e.g., UTAH12345). 

A.22.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.25 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-40 June 2010 

Exhibit A.25 Utah – Number of Systems by Population Served and System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 945 903 4% 

<101 TNCWS 253 264 -4% 

<101 NTNCWS 27 44 -63% 

<101 CWS 102 95 7% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 152 154 -1% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 27 31 -15% 

101 to 500 CWS 137 140 -2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 23 26 -13% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 3 3 0% 

501 to 1000 CWS 54 53 2% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 3 3 0% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 5 8 -60% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 66 65 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 0 100% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 76 17 78% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 12 0 100% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 4 0 100% 

A.22.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Utah: 

 The total number of samples included is 10,759. 

The total number of routine samples included is 9,572. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 9,187. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 385. 

A.22.4 QA Issues 

 The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

The records that did not have data elements for “System Type” were deleted. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-41 June 2010 

A.23 VERMONT 

A.23.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Most records do not have “Date Sample Analyzed data” elements’ date difference 

comparison was completed for available data. Of those that could be compared, no 2005 records 

had date differences of 10 days or more. Most repeat sample records do not have data elements 

in “Repeat Sample Relative Location” field. Most records do not have “Analytical Method” data 

elements. 

A.23.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.26 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS/Fed 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.26 Vermont – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1,367 1,329 3% 

<101 TNCWS 422 381 10% 

<101 NTNCWS 119 119 0% 

<101 CWS 144 143 1% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 242 248 -2% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 105 110 -5% 

101 to 500 CWS 171 174 -2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 19 25 -32% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 12 12 0% 

501 to 1000 CWS 42 42 0% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 7 4 43% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-42 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 5 3 40% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 55 55 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 23 13 43% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 1 0 100% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 0 0 

A.23.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Vermont: 

 The total number of samples included is 15,330. 

The total number of routine samples included is 13,609. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 12,962. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 647. 

A.23.4 QA Issues 

 The records with RW were deleted from “Sampling Point Relative Location” data 

element field. The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were 

deleted. 

A.24 WEST VIRGINIA 

A.24.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-43 June 2010 

Narrative of Issues 

 Most records do not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data elements; a date difference 

comparison was completed for available data. Of those that could be compared, no 2005 records 

had date differences of 10 days or more. Several large systems had population discrepancies 

when comparing the State dataset to 2005 SDWIS inventory. The majority of records do not 

have “Analytical Method” data elements. 

A.24.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.27 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.27 West Virginia – Number of Systems by Population Served and 

System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1192 1200 -0.67% 

<101 TNCWS 461 466 -1% 

<101 NTNCWS 71 73 -3% 

<101 CWS 75 70 7% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 45 45 0% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 63 67 -6% 

101 to 500 CWS 204 132 35% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 2 3 -50% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 10 9 10% 

501 to 1000 CWS 185 72 61% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 8 8 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 62 188 -203% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 4 62 -1450% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 1 4 -300% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 0 1 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-44 June 2010 

A.24.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for West Virginia: 

 The total number of samples is 25,664. 

The total number of routine samples included is 25,069. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 24,894. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 175. 

A.24.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records 

with RW and WS (when clearly labeled as being part of a treatment plant rather than a 

distribution system) were deleted from “Sampling Point Relative Location” data element field. 

The records that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 

A.25 WYOMING 

A.25.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The majority of records do not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data elements; a date 

difference comparison was completed for available data. Of those that could be compared, no 

2005 records had date differences of 10 days or more. Many repeat sample records do not have 

data elements in “Repeat Sample Relative Location” field. The majority of records do not have 

“Analytical Method” data elements. 

A.25.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.28 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data used in the 37-State final dataset. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-45 June 2010 

Exhibit A.28 Wyoming – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 765 729 5% 

<101 TNCWS 282 259 8% 

<101 NTNCWS 43 41 5% 

<101 CWS 87 85 2% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 91 86 5% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 36 35 3% 

101 to 500 CWS 118 117 1% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 12 17 -42% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 5 5 0% 

501 to 1000 CWS 19 20 -5% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 12 7 42% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 2 2 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 33 32 3% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 3 3 0% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 20 18 10% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 2 2 0% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 0 0 

A.25.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Wyoming: 

 The total number of samples included is 12,749. 

The total number of routine samples included is 12,123. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 11,935. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 188. 

A.25.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records 

that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-46 June 2010 

A.26 REGION 8 TRIBAL 

A.26.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Please see above for a list of kept data element fields, a list of removed data element 

fields, the definitions of data element fields, and a list of the final data element field names 

compared to the original data element field names. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 No correspondence was necessary. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The majority of records do not have “Date Sample Analyzed” data elements; date 

difference comparison was completed for available data. Of those that could be compared, no 

2005 records had date differences of 10 days or more. Some repeat sample records do not have 

data elements in “Repeat Sample Relative Location” field. Most records do not have “Analytical 

Method” data elements. 

A.26.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit A.29 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided used in the 37-State final dataset. 

Exhibit A.29 Region 8 Tribal – Number of Systems by Population Served and 

System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 127 123 3% 

<101 TNCWS 2 2 0% 

<101 NTNCWS 3 3 0% 

<101 CWS 29 28 3% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 5 4 20% 

101 to 500 CWS 48 49 -2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 0 0 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 2 0 100% 

501 to 1000 CWS 13 13 0% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 A-47 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

2005 SDWIS Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 0 2 

1001 to 4100 CWS 21 20 5% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 3 2 33% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 0 0 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 0 0 

A.26.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Region 8 Tribal: 

 The total number of samples included is 2,398. 

The total number of routine samples included is 2,109. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 2,037. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 72. 

A.26.4 QA Issues 

 The records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records 

that had NP data elements (non-public) in “System Type” field were deleted. 
Appendix B 

Summary of Data from States Not Using the Extraction Tool: 

State-by-State Breakout 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-i June 2010 

 

Contents 

B.1 ARKANSAS .................................................................................................................... B-3 

B.2 FLORIDA ........................................................................................................................ B-6 

B.3 ILLINOIS ....................................................................................................................... B-10 

B.4 MICHIGAN ................................................................................................................... B-13 

B.5 MINNESOTA ................................................................................................................ B-18 

B.7 NEW HAMPSHIRE ...................................................................................................... B-24 

B.8 OHIO.............................................................................................................................. B-28 

B.9 VIRGINIA ..................................................................................................................... B-34 

B.10 WISCONSIN ................................................................................................................. B-37 

B.11 REGION 9 TRIBAL ...................................................................................................... B-42 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-1 June 2010 

 

For each State that did not use the SDWIS Extraction Tool, below is a description of the 

data, crosswalk of the data fields, narrative of the issues, summary of the correspondence with 

the State, inventory comparison, total number of records, and any QA issues. The inventory 

comparisons are based on the data in the final 37-State dataset and SDWIS-FED (4th Q, 2005). 

The final dataset is based on applying the 50 percent criterion and other corrections that were 

made to ensure consistency. 

 This appendix looks specifically at the data quality and representativeness, primarily as 

compared to the data in SDWIS-FED, but also with regard to internal consistency in the State 

data. Noting differences between the State data and SDWIS-FED does not imply that changes 

were necessarily made to the State data, but the differences allowed EPA to gauge the coverage 

and completeness of the State data, their consistency with SDWIS-FED, and the internal 

consistency within the State dataset. Where changes were made to the data, those changes are 

noted. 

 For example, the State-reported populations of the 10 largest systems in each State were 

compared to the data in SDWIS-FED. In some cases, that identified that several of the largest 

systems were not in the State-reported data, or that the numbers appeared to differ by small or 

larger amounts. Differences in quantities are noted, but were not explored or corrected” (without 

research, it was unclear which figure might be the more correct). 

 Data element fields that were unnecessary in the final dataset were removed. The 

number of original data element fields varied for each State; the final data sets contain the same 

19 data element fields that are used in the final data sets of the States that used the Extraction 

Tool. The original data field names were replaced with more “user-friendly” field names to 

decrease confusion and provide a more informative title for the data in the each field. 

General QA Issues 

PWSID Numbers – Not all of the States provided the PWSID Number in the standard Federal 

format of seven numeric digits preceded by the two letter State acronym/code (e.g., 

DC1234567). Leading zeros were added in place of the missing numeric digits; all spot-checks 

proved that zeros were the missing numeric digit. The two-digit State acronym/code was added 

where needed. 

 Key Data Fields – Most data element field names were in a different order and had 

different names from the names used by the States that used the Extraction Tool. Some 

additional data codes were used in the key data element fields that were not seen/used in the 

States that used the Extraction Tool. Data element fields were renamed and reordered to match 

the data output formats generated by the Extraction Tool. Where States did not provide a data 

element field, data element fields were added for consistency. For example, if no analysis date 

field were provided, a new column “Date Sample Analyzed” was added. 

System Type – To standardize codes with the other data sources, converted “P” to “NTNC”; 

Converted “N” to “NC.” 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-2 June 2010 

Source Water – To standardize codes with the other data sources, converted “GP” to “GWP”; 

Converted “SP” to “SWP.” 

Analyte Code – Some State submissions included an Analyte Name, but left the Analyte Code 

blank. Filled blank analyte code fields (COLIFORM (TCR)=3100; FECAL COLIFORM=3013; 

COLIFORM, E. COLI=3014) based on data in the Analyte Name field. 

Analyte Name - Removed disinfectant residual data from data tables (but kept data for potential 

future use). 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-3 June 2010 

B.1 ARKANSAS 

B.1.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.1 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

Arkansas to the final data element fields used in the dataset. Arkansas included data element 

fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used in the final 37-State 

dataset. These data element fields were deleted from the final dataset and are not included in data 

element fields listed in Exhibit B.1. Six fields that are included in the final dataset were not 

included in the data that the State submitted. These missing data element fields were added for 

consistency with the data submitted using the SDWIS extraction tool. 

Exhibit B.1 Arkansas Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element 

Field Names Final Data Element Field Names 

NUMBER0 PWSID_Number 

NAME PWSID_Name 

D_PWS_FED_TYPE_CD System_Type 

D_POPULATION_COUNT Population_Served 

source water type Source_Water 

IDENTIFICATION_CD Sampling_Point_Number 

analysis type Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

- Source_Water_Treatment 

- Facility_ID_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Text 

LAB_ASGND_ID_NUM Lab_Sample_Number 

COLLLECTION_END_DT Date_Sample_Taken 

- Date_Sample_Analyzed 

TYPE_CODE Sample_Type 

- Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

- Analytical_Method 

- Analyte_Name 

CODE Analyte_Code 

REPORTED_MSR Presence_Absence_Result 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 

 A number of emails and phone calls were exchanged with the State to clarify the 

submitted data. Clarification was received about why there seemed to be a lack of data. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-4 June 2010 

Arkansas initially sent in only results for repeat samples. Results for routine samples were sent 

separately and clarification was received on how to interpret the sample type to distinguish 

between routine and repeat samples. Clarification was also received on primary water source for 

systems that purchase water (systems were cross-checked with SDWIS-FED). 

 The State contact said there is no way to link up the repeat samples with the original 

positive routine sample, because the lab sheets for the repeat samples don’t have a place to put 

the unique lab number or some other indicator that could link up the two samples. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The State did not use same convention as SDWIS extraction tool for a number of data 

element fields. There is not a way to link repeat samples with the original positive routine 

sample. Some systems were listed as purchasing water purchase from both ground water sources 

and surface water sources, but their primary water source was unclear. 

B.1.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.2 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Arkansas. 

Exhibit B.2 Arkansas – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

Difference 

SDWIS 

2005 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 1,105 1,019 8% 

<101 TNCWS 315 259 18% 

<101 NTNCWS 15 14 7% 

<101 CWS 45 34 24% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 27 30 -11% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 14 13 7% 

101 to 500 CWS 176 165 6% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 4 3 25% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 4 4 0% 

501 to 1000 CWS 139 129 7% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 2 2 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 246 246 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 109 114 -5% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-5 June 2010 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 8 6 25% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 1 0 100% 

B.1.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Arkansas: 

The total number of samples included is 46,059.

The total number of routine samples included is 43,674. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 43,244. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 430. 

B.1.4 QA Issues 

Consistency with SDWIS Extraction Tool 

 Where appropriate, data element fields were added or renamed (see Exhibit B.1). The 

records that did not have “Presence Absence Result” data were deleted. The records labeled as 

SP (special) in “Sample Type” data element field are not used for compliance and were deleted. 

The records with NP in “System Type” were deleted. Data elements in “Source Water” were 

converted to be consistent with the data elements used by the SDWIS Extraction Tool (i.e., all 

changed to SW, GW, GWP, or SWP). Additionally, because some systems purchase both 

ground water and surface water, it was necessary to cross-check primary source water for 

systems that purchase water with the SDWIS inventory (SDWIS-FED, 4thQ, 2005) to confirm 

the final dataset had the correct data. 

Interpretation of Codes 

 All the records submitted by the State initially were labeled as routine even though some 

were repeats. After clarification from the State, the data element field “Identification code” was 

used to identify a record as a repeat sample. If there was a letter in the “Identification Code” 

column, the record was actually a repeat sample (RT converted to RP in this instance). The 

letters [A=original, B=upstream, C=downstream, D=alternate] are indicative of where the repeat 

sample was drawn. If some other data element besides the letters listed above was in the 

“Identification Code” field, the record was a routine sample. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-6 June 2010 

B.2 FLORIDA 

B.2.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.3 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

Florida to the final data element fields used in the dataset. Florida included additional data 

element fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used in the final 

analyses. These data element fields were deleted from the final 37-State dataset and are not 

included in data element fields listed in Exhibit B.3.

Exhibit B.3 Florida Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element 

Field Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

PWS ID PWSID_Number “FL” did not precede 7-digit number. Added 

“FL” in final data 

Mailing Name PWSID_Name 

PWS Type System_Type 

Population Served Population_Served 

- Source_Water 

- Sampling_Point_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

- Source_Water_Treatment 

- Facility_ID_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Text 

Sample # Lab_Sample_Number 

Sample Date Date_Sample_Taken 

Date_Sample_Analyzed 

Sample Type Sample_Type 

Codes State used weren’t common – 

needed to change them to be consistent 

with other State’s data. 

- Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

- Analytical_Method 

- Analyte_Name 

- Analyte_Code 

- Presence_Absence_Result Code combinations were used to populate 

this field – see below. 

Result - Used in combination to populate Presence 

F/E Ind - Absence data element field. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-7 June 2010 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 The Florida State personnel were very helpful. Correspondence consisted of two phone 

calls and several emails with Florida personnel. Clarification was received on the interpretation 

of Florida’s “Result” field. Clarification and direction was received on the “Sample Type” field 

(i.e., delete “R” records). Clarification and direction was received on a number of codes that 

Florida used in their reporting that were not standard for States using the SDWIS Extraction 

Tool. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The State acronym “FL” did not precede the PWSIDs that the State submitted with their 

dataset. 

 EC and FC negative samples are not distinguishable from each other because the data 

provided did not include entries specifying which analytical method was used if the result was 

negative. A new analyte name was used (“EC or FC”) for these records. For positive test results, 

the State of Florida reported the analytical method (EC or FC). System TC records were 

grouped by month when all TC samples were negative and were converted into individual 

records to match the format of the 37-State dataset. This method of grouped reporting carried a 

single date but did not mean that samples were all taken on one day. 

B.2.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.4 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Florida. 

Exhibit B.4 Florida – Number of Systems by Population Served and System Type 

Population 

Served 

System 

Type 

Number of Systems 

Percent 

Difference 

SDWIS 

2005 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 6,137 6,125 0.2% 

<101 TNCWS 2,690 2,695 0% 

<101 NTNCWS 634 612 3% 

<101 CWS 448 424 5% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 518 498 4% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 239 252 -5% 

101 to 500 CWS 607 621 -2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 54 58 -7% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 67 71 -6% 

501 to 1000 CWS 181 187 -3% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 8 9 -13% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 28 27 4% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-8 June 2010 

1001 to 4100 CWS 301 301 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 2 2 0% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 5 5 100% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 242 240 1% 

33,001 to 

96,000 

TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 

96,000 

NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 

96,000 

CWS 76 83 -9% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 37 40 -8% 

B.2.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Florida: 

The total number of samples included is 287,086. 

The total number of routine samples included is 281,232. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 279,658. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 1,574. 

B.2.4 QA Issues 

 Where appropriate, data element fields were renamed for the final dataset (see Exhibit 

B.3). 

PWSIDs 

 The State acronym “FL” was added before the 7-digit PWSIDs that the State submitted. 

Sample Type 

 In the “Sample Type” field records with “R” are raw water intakes before chlorination, 

not DS compliance samples per Federal TCR. All “R” records were deleted from the “Sample 

Type” data element field 

Results 

 In FL’s “Result” data element field there were records with “777”, “888”, or “999”. 

These records were used to represent samples that could not be read or a laboratory error. 

All records with “777”, “888”, or “999” in the Florida dataset “Result” data element field were 

deleted. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-9 June 2010 

 System TC records that were grouped by month when all TC samples were negative 

were converted into individual records to match the format of the 37-State dataset. The 

separation of grouped records into individual records required replication of the record to 

account for the correct number of samples that would have been taken by a system of this size. 

For the State of Florida, this process increased the number of records by about 4.5 times from the 

number submitted. 

 EC and FC negative records were not distinguishable from each other; a new analyte 

name was used (“EC or FC”) for these records. 

Interpretation of Codes 

 PWS Type – C=CWS; N=Transient; P=Non Transient 

 Sample Type – All T and D samples are routine compliance samples for TCR purposes 

(T=single tap; D=distribution system) and were made “RT” samples; C=check, i.e., Repeat and 

were made “RP” samples. R=raw and were deleted. 

 Samples Required – Pulls from system file and relates to a full system month, not a 

record. Note that FL systems are required by the State to take at least two samples per month (no 

single samples; no quarterly or annual samples). 

 Sample Date – Dates generally apply to the month (most are on the first) and may not 

reflect the actual date sample was taken (grouped reporting does not mean that samples were all 

taken on one day). 

 Result and F/E Ind fields – see Exhibit B.5 below outlining steps taken after consulting 

with the State. 

Exhibit B.5 Florida Data Dictionary 

“Result” field “F/E Ind” 

field 

“Samples 

Taken” field

Interpretation 

[blank] or “0” [zero] [blank] 

[any 

positive 

number] 

All TC- 

[blank] or “0” [zero] “0” [zero] or 

N 1 

TC-. Either an EC or FC test 

was not performed (an “N”), or 

the result was negative (“0”), 

but it cannot be determined 

whether the sample was tested 

for EC or FC. In either case, 

this sample should not be used 

in EC or FC analysis. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-10 June 2010 

“Result” field “F/E Ind” 

field 

“Samples 

Taken” field

Interpretation 

“777”, “888”, or “999” [any] 1 

DELETE, sample results could 

not be used (e.g., lab error, 

other growth obscured 

colonies) 

[any nonzero value 

except “777”, “888”, 

or“999”] 

E 1 

TC+, EC+ 

[any nonzero value 

except “777”, “888”, 

or “999”] 

F 1 

TC+, FC+ 

[any nonzero value 

except “777”, “888”, 

or “999”] 

N 1 

TC+, EC or FC Sample not 

taken, so should not be used in 

EC or FC analysis. 

B.3 ILLINOIS 

B.3.1 Description of Data 

 The initial data that Illinois sent was incomplete. More complete data was received after 

correspondence with the State. 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.6 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

Illinois to the final data element fields used in the dataset. Illinois included additional data 

element fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used in the final 37-

State dataset. These data element fields were deleted from the final dataset and are not included 

in data element fields listed in Exhibit B.6. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-11 June 2010 

Exhibit B.6 Illinois Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element Field Names Final Data Element Field Names 

NUMBER0 PWSID_Number 

TINWYS_NAME PWSID_Name 

D_PWS_FED_TYPE_CD System_Type 

D_POPULATION Population_Served 

D_FED_PRIM_SRC_CD Source_Water 

- Sampling_Point_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

- Source_Water_Treatment 

- Facility_ID_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Text 

LAB_ASSGND_ID_NUM Lab_Sample_Number 

COLLECTION_END_DT Date_Sample_Taken 

- Date_Sample_Analyzed 

dbo_TSASAMPL_TYPE_CODE Sample_Type 

- Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

- Analytical_Method 

dbo_TSAANLYT_NAME Analyte_Name 

CODE Analyte_Code 

PRESENCE_IND_CODE Presence_Absence_Result 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 Initial dataset submitted by the State was incomplete and unusable. After corresponding 

with the State, a more complete and usable dataset was submitted. 

Narrative of Issues 

 After Illinois resubmitted the data set, there were no significant issues. 

B.3.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.7 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Illinois. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-12 June 2010 

Exhibit B.7 Illinois – Number of Systems by Population Served and System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

SDWIS 2005 Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 5,882 4,413 25% 

<101 TNCWS 2,845 1,769 38% 

<101 NTNCWS 139 70 50% 

<101 CWS 171 164 4% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 750 537 28% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 205 146 29% 

101 to 500 CWS 482 480 0% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 85 64 25% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 48 38 21% 

501 to 1000 CWS 306 305 0% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 9 4 56% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 23 22 4% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 436 436 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 0 100% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 322 322 0% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 50 48 4% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 10 8 20% 

B.3.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Illinois: 

The total number of samples included is 137,697. 

The total number of routine samples included is 134,569. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 133,516. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 1,053. 

B.3.4 QA Issues 

 Where appropriate, data element fields were renamed for the final dataset (see Exhibit 

B.6). The records with data element “NP” in the “System Type” field were deleted. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-13 June 2010 

B.4 MICHIGAN 

B.4.1 Description of Data 

 The system types (NTNCWS vs. TNCWS) were unclear in the initial submission from 

Michigan. After correspondence with the State, data on the system type designation was 

clarified so that sample records could be assigned to the correct system type and included in the 

final 37-State dataset. 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.8 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

Michigan to the final data element fields used in the dataset. Michigan included additional data 

element fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used in the final 

analyses. These data element fields were deleted from the final dataset and are not included in 

data element fields listed in Exhibit B.8. 

Exhibit B.8 Michigan Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element 

Field Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

CWS_ID PWSID Number Added leading zeroes and State 

prefix. 

- PWSID Name None provided. Remains 

unpopulated. 

- System Type Used State inventory to interpret 

system type. 

- Population Served Retrieved population data from 

SDWIS inventory (4thQ, 2005) 

- Source Water Retrieved source water data from 

SDWIS inventory (4thQ, 2005) 

Sample_id_num Sampling Point Number 

Sample_type Sampling Point Relative Location Mislabeled field 

- Source Water Treatment 

- Facility ID Number 

- Sampling Point Text 

- Lab Sample Number 

Sample_Date Date Sample Taken 

- Date Sample Analyzed 

Sample_purpose Sample Type 

Used data dictionary and 

interpretation clarifications to 

populate this data element field. 

- Repeat Sample Relative Location 

- Analytical Method 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-14 June 2010 

Original Data Element 

Field Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

- Analyte Name 

Used State clarification of 

missing sample results to 

interpret and populate field. 

- Analyte Code 

Used State clarification of 

missing sample results to 

interpret and populate field. See 

Interpretation of Codes section. 

- Presence Absence Result Code combinations were used to 

populate this field – see below. 

Result_value - Used in combination to populate 

Presence Absence data element 

Result_sign - field. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 State clarified their data element field labeled “CWS_ID.” Michigan submitted data from 

community systems and non-community systems separately. State gave direction to delete 

records from systems where the PWSID read “error.” State clarified that the Federal PWSID 

could be generated if leading zeroes and the State prefix (MI) was added to the data elements in 

CWS_ID. 

 Clarification was received on apparently missing EC/FC records. Records are not 

missing; it is rather a function of how the lab reports the results. Rather than a separate record 

for EC positive, labs code total coliform results “EC POS” if it was found positive for E. coli. 

State’s direction was to assume a sample was positive for both TC and EC when a record reads 

“EC POS.” 

 Clarification was received on missing large system data. State responded that only those 

water supplies that use the State lab and a handful of other labs are housed in the State database. 

Data processed at any of the other certified labs are tracked manually and are not available in the 

database. For the systems that were brought to the State’s attention, it is likely that they use their 

own labs or another certified lab and are therefore unavailable. 

 Clarification was received on Sample Type coding and on how the State reported 

Presence Absence Results. 

Narrative of Issues 

 

 Michigan submitted incomplete data initially. Michigan then submitted useable data in 

multi-file formats. State did not provide any PWS Names; this data element field was left blank 

for the final dataset. PWSIDs were in the incorrect format, and some data elements in PWSID 

field read “error.” The original submission from Michigan had no system types listed; the 

PWSID field was labeled CWS_ID in MI’s original submission. This field actually included 

both CWS and NCWS data. Michigan did not provide data for “Population Served.” This data 

element field was populated using retail population data from the SDWIS 2005 inventory. 

Unfamiliar codes/terms/code combinations were used in a number of data element fields that 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-15 June 2010 

required clarification from the State. No “Analytical Method” data elements were provided. No 

Analyte Name or Code data elements were provided. 

B.4.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.9 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Michigan. 

Exhibit B.9 Michigan – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

SDWIS 2005 Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 11,743 8,966 24% 

<101 TNCWS 6,542 5,262 20% 

<101 NTNCWS 817 681 17% 

<101 CWS 343 165 52% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 1990 1631 18% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 584 505 14% 

101 to 500 CWS 404 207 49% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 148 138 7% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 134 117 13% 

501 to 1000 CWS 156 63 60% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 49 37 24% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 23 24 -4% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 298 106 64% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 8 0 100% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 3 2 33% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 197 28 86% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 37 0 100% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 10 0 100% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-16 June 2010 

B.4.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Michigan: 

The total number of samples included is 39,610. 

The total number of routine samples included is 35,915. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 34,867. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 1,048. 

B.4.4 QA Issues 

 Where appropriate, data element fields were renamed for the final dataset (see Exhibit 

B.8). 

PWSIDs 

 Leading zeroes and State acronym (MI) were added to generate Federal PWSID format. 

All records from systems where the PWSID = “error” were deleted. 

System Type 

 The SDWIS 2005, 4thQ inventory for Michigan was used to populate the “System Type” 

data element field for each system since no System Type was provided with the original 

submission. 

Interpretation of Codes 

 The “Presence Absence Result” data element field was interpreted using the code 

combinations suggested by the State and are described in Exhibit B.10 below. 

Exhibit B.10 Michigan Results Data Dictionary 

Result-sign field Result-value field Interpretation 

< blank TC- 

= 0 TC- 

= [any nonzero value]TC+ 

ND TC- 

 POS TC+ 

 EC POS TC+ & EC+ 

 The State provided direction to interpret and correct the “Sample Type” data element 

field as shown in Exhibit B.11 below. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-17 June 2010 

Exhibit B.11 Michigan Sample Type Data Dictionary 

Entry in 

“Sample-purpose” Field General Interpretation Other Possible Exclusion/Inclusions 

Blank 

Include as Routine 

Samples 

Records that have the following 

entries in the Sample Type Field are 

excluded: 

Raw Water Tap 

Pressure Tank/Plant Tap 

Untreated Private Well 

Treated/Softened Private Well 

“Compliance Monitoring 

– SDWA” 

“Routine Monitoring” 

“Repeat Sample” Include as Repeat Samples

“Real Estate Transaction” 

Exclude “Repair/Construction/ 

New Well” 

“Water Quality Problem” 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-18 June 2010 

B.5 MINNESOTA 

B.5.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.12 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

Minnesota to the final data element fields used in the dataset. Minnesota included additional 

data element fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used in the 

final analyses. These data element fields were deleted from the final dataset and are not included 

in data element fields listed in Exhibit B.12. 

Exhibit B.12 Minnesota Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element Field Names Final Data Element Field Names 

PWSID PWSID_Number 

SysName PWSID_Name 

SysType System_Type 

Popserv Population_Served 

SrcType Source_Water 

SampID Sampling_Point_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

SampType Source_Water_Treatment 

SPID Facility_ID_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Text 

- Lab_Sample_Number 

Date Date_Sample_Taken 

- Date_Sample_Analyzed 

SampPurp Sample_Type 

SampType Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

- Analytical_Method 

- Analyte_Name 

ChemID Analyte_Code 

Sign Presence_Absence_Result 

Value PWSID_Number 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 The State provided clarification and an explanation for why there seemed to be a lack of 

Routine samples reported. In Minnesota, community systems on a monthly monitoring schedule 

report to the State their TC negative samples in summary format, that is, only the total number of 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-19 June 2010 

TC negative samples are reported, not individual TC negative samples. The State also provided a 

Total Routine Absent Count for all systems on monthly monitoring schedules (363,706) when 

requested, but this count was not compatible with the 37-State dataset format and therefore was 

not used. 

 

 EPA requested clarification for the “Confirmation” label that Minnesota used under the 

“Sample Type” data element field. Nearly all “Confirmation” samples are investigative samples. 

Only six Sample IDs were non-investigative “Confirmation” samples and were repeat samples. 

Although confirmation and clarification was received on a number of codes used by Minnesota, 

no clarification was needed for the 2005 data. 

 

Narrative of Issues 

 

 There were no coding issues in the 2005 data. 

B.5.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.13 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Minnesota. 

Exhibit B.13 Minnesota – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

SDWIS 2005 Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 7,460 6,903 7% 

<101 TNCWS 4,850 4,552 6% 

<101 NTNCWS 364 352 3% 

<101 CWS 177 173 2% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 976 966 1% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 154 158 -3% 

101 to 500 CWS 308 305 1% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 85 83 2% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 25 21 16% 

501 to 1000 CWS 153 154 -1% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 32 33 -3% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 10 9 10% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 187 78 58% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 114 18 84% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-20 June 2010 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 22 0 100% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 2 0 100% 

B.5.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Minnesota: 

The total number of samples included is 22,175. 

The total number of routine samples included is 14,382. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 13,754. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 628. 

B.5.4 QA Issues 

 Consistency with SDWIS Extraction Tool 

 Where appropriate, data element fields were renamed to match the 37-State dataset (see 

Exhibit B.13). To match the codes used in the 37-State dataset, Minnesota’s “System Type” 

codes were changed as follows: “P” was converted to “NTNC” and “N” was converted to “NC.” 

The records labeled as “NP” in system type were deleted. Data elements in “Source Water” field 

also needed to be converted to match the SDWIS Extraction Tool format. The State’s “GP” was 

converted to “GWP” and “SP” to “SWP.” The State did not provide data in “Analyte Code” 

field and so used the “Analyte Name” field to populate the “Analyte Code” data element field 

(i.e., COLIFORM (TCR)=3100, FECAL COLIFORM=3013, COLIFORM, E. COLI=3014). 

Interpretation of Codes 

 No interpretation of codes was needed for the 2005 data. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-21 June 2010 

B.6 MISSOURI 

B.6.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.14 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted 

by Missouri to the final data element fields used in the 37-State dataset. Missouri included 

additional data element fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used 

in the final analyses. These data element fields were deleted from the 37-State dataset and are not 

included in data element fields listed in Exhibit B.15. 

 

Exhibit B.14 Missouri Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element Field Names Final Data Element Field Names 

DNR Public Water Supply ID PWSID_Number 

System Name PWSID_Name 

System Type System_Type 

Population Population_Served 

- Source_Water 

Sample ID Sampling_Point_Number 

Sample Source Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

- Source_Water_Treatment 

- Facility_ID_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Text 

- Lab_Sample_Number 

Sample Date Date_Sample_Taken 

- Date_Sample_Analyzed 

- Sample_Type 

- Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

Analysis Method Analytical_Method 

Contaminant Analyte_Name 

CONTAM_CODE Analyte_Code 

Presence_IND_CODE Presence_Absence_Result 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 There was no correspondence with State personnel. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-22 June 2010 

Narrative of Issues 

 The State provided very few data for “Date Sample Analyzed” field; a date difference 

comparison was completed for available data. No records had date differences of 10 days or 

more. Almost no fecal data was provided. The State did not provide “Analytical Method” data. 

B.6.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.15 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Missouri. 

Exhibit B.15 Missouri – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

SDWIS 2005 Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 2,736 ,2726 0.4% 

<101 TNCWS 751 759 -1% 

<101 NTNCWS 110 106 4% 

<101 CWS 412 413 0% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 235 242 -3% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 94 94 0% 

101 to 500 CWS 442 442 0% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 28 29 -4% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 26 25 4% 

501 to 1000 CWS 182 179 2% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 7 6 14% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 14 15 -7% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 278 283 -2% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 141 128 9% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 11 5 55% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 5 0 100% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-23 June 2010 

B.6.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Missouri: 

The total number of samples included is 69,982. 

The total number of routine samples included is 65,404. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 63,999. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 1,405. 

B.6.4 QA Issues 

 The records without data in “Presence Absence Result” field were deleted. The records 

with data element NP in “System Type” were deleted. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-24 June 2010 

B.7 NEW HAMPSHIRE 

B.7.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.16 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

New Hampshire to the final data element fields used in the dataset. New Hampshire included 

additional data element fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used 

in the final analyses. These data element fields were deleted from the final dataset and are not 

included in data element fields listed in Exhibit B.17. 

Exhibit B.16 New Hampshire Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element Field 

Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

NHPWSID PWSID_Number 

Added leading zeroes and State 

acronym “NH” to submitted 

PWSIDs. 

PWSName PWSID_Name 

CPN System_Type Changed codes used by State to 

codes used by the Extraction Tool. 

- Population_Served 

State did not provide population 

data. Used SDIWS 2005 inventory 

to fill in this data element field. 

- Source_Water 

State did not provide source water 

data. Used SDIWS 2005 inventory 

to fill in this data element field. 

SamplePointID Sampling_Point_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

- Source_Water_Treatment 

- Facility_ID_Number 

SampleDescription Sampling_Point_Text 

SampleID Lab_Sample_Number State submitted data dictionary to 

clarify data element field. 

DateSampled Date_Sample_Taken 

- Date_Sample_Analyzed 

SampleType Sample_Type 

- Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

- Analytical_Method 

- Analyte_Name Used Analyte Code that State 

provided to populate Analyte Name.

Contaminant Analyte_Code 

Results Presence_Absence_Result State submitted data dictionary to 

clarify data element field. 

SamplePointType - State submitted data dictionary to 

clarify data element field. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-25 June 2010 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 Clarification about the codes in New Hampshire’s “SamplePointType” and “Lab Sample 

Number” fields was received. 

Narrative of Issues 

 State submitted data in two tables. The original table labeled “TCR” has routine sample 

data, and the original table labeled “TCR1” has repeat sample data. The PWSID that the State 

used in submittal was not in Federal PWSID format. The State only provided an Analyte Code. 

Some of the codes that the State used were not common. 

B.7.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.17 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by New Hampshire. 

Exhibit B.17 New Hampshire – Number of Systems by Population Served and 

System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

SDWIS 2005 Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 2,377 2,262 5% 

<101 TNCWS 691 626 9% 

<101 NTNCWS 272 267 2% 

<101 CWS 324 328 -1% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 457 423 7% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 127 129 -2% 

101 to 500 CWS 255 249 2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 53 46 13% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 42 42 0% 

501 to 1000 CWS 42 36 14% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 17 18 -6% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 7 7 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 59 61 -3% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 25 25 0% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 2 2 0% 

>96,000 TNCWS 1 0 100% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-26 June 2010 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 1 1 0% 

B.7.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for New Hampshire: 

The total number of samples included is 24,136. 

The total number of routine samples included is 21,881. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 21,254. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 627. 

B.7.4 QA Issues 

Data Format 

 The two original data tables that were submitted by New Hampshire were combined in 

order incorporate data in the final 37-State Dataset. Where appropriate, data element fields were 

renamed for the final dataset (see Exhibit B.16). 

PWSIDs 

 Leading zeros (when necessary) and the State acronym “NH” were added to PWSIDs 

submitted by New Hampshire in order to generate the PWSID in the format used in SDWIS/Fed 

(e.g., DC1234567). 

Analyte Name 

 “Analyte Code” data elements were used to populate the “Analyte Name” data element 

field (i.e., 3100=TCR; 3013=Fecal; 3014=E. coli). 

Interpretations of Codes 

 State provided clarification on some codes used to indicate sample point type. The codes 

“H” and “N” are distribution system samples. These codes were changed to “DS” in order to 

match the SDWIS Extraction Tool codes. 

 The State submitted data dictionary to assist in code interpretation. Exhibit B.18 details 

the code interpretations for the “System Type” field, and Exhibit B.19 details the code 

interpretations for the “Presence Absence Result” field. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-27 June 2010 

Exhibit B.18 New Hampshire System Type Data Dictionary 

NH 

Code Code Description 

Final Data 

Element Code 

C COMMUNITY SYSTEM C 

N NON-COMMUNITY 

TRANSIENT NC 

P NON-TRANSIENT NONCOMMUNITY NTNC 

Exhibit B.19 New Hampshire Presence Absence Result Data Dictionary 

NH 

Code Code Description 

Final Data 

Element Code 

*** Absent A 

OKK Sample Waived Deleted 

PEC Present E. coli P 

PFC Present Fecal P 

PNC Present Non-Coli. P 

PTC Present Total Coli. P 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-28 June 2010 

B.8 OHIO 

B.8.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.20 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

Ohio to the final data element fields used in the dataset. Ohio included additional data element 

fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used in the final analyses. 

These data element fields were deleted from the final dataset and are not included in data 

element fields listed in Exhibit B.20. 

Exhibit B.20 Ohio Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element 

Field Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

PWS_ID PWSID_Number 

SYSNAME PWSID_Name 

SYSTYPE System_Type Changed codes to be consistent with 

other State’s data. 

- Population_Served OH didn’t include population data. Used 

2005 SDWIS to add data. 

SOURCETYPE Source_Water Changed codes to be consistent with 

other State’s data. 

SNUMBER Sampling_Point_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

- Source_Water_Treatment 

- Facility_ID_Number 

LOCATION Sampling_Point_Text 

- Lab_Sample_Number 

COLLDATE Date_Sample_Taken 

RECDATE Date_Sample_Analyzed 

SAMTYPE Sample_Type 

Also used in combination with RESULT 

to populate Presence Absence Result 

field 

- Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

- Analytical_Method 

- Analyte_Name Used data dictionary to interpret Analyte 

Name. 

- Analyte_Code Used data dictionary to interpret Analyte 

Code. 

- Presence_Absence_Result 

Used a combination of codes from 

SAMTYPE and RESULT fields to 

interpret P/A result. 

RESULT - Used in combination with SAMTYPE to 

populate Presence Absence Result field
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-29 June 2010 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 Clarification was received on a number of codes the State used in their “RESULT” and 

“SAMPTYPE” field. Cadmus contacted the State with a list of unknown codes and code 

combinations and possible interpretations for some. The State responded with an updated list 

that defined or provided direction for each code/code combination. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Ohio used a number of unknown/uncommon codes and code combinations. The State 

was contacted to clarify and get a data dictionary in order to better understand the data Ohio had 

submitted. The data clean-up process was very involved after State clarification. Ohio used 

different codes in “System Type” and “Source Water” data element fields. Ohio did not include 

data for Population Served. This data element field was populated using the SDWIS 2005 

inventory. Ohio only entered one single result for every sample, e.g., although EC assays were 

always triggered by a TC+ result, only the EC assay result was recorded. Additional records 

were added to match the format of the 37-State dataset. 

B.8.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.21 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Ohio. 

Exhibit B.21 Ohio – Number of Systems by Population Served and System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

SDWIS 2005 Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

Total 5,420 5,031 7% 

<101 TNCWS 1,901 1,761 7% 

<101 NTNCWS 476 471 1% 

<101 CWS 233 227 3% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 1,140 ,1081 5% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 439 345 21% 

101 to 500 CWS 349 329 6% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 104 104 0% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 23 92 -300% 

501 to 1000 CWS 169 156 8% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 23 21 9% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 1 22 -2100% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 284 243 14% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 1 -100% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-30 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

SDWIS 2005 Difference 

37-State 

Dataset 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 235 155 34% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 32 16 50% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 10 6 40% 

B.8.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Ohio: 

The total number of samples included is 88,923. 

The total number of routine samples included is 81,406. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 80,160. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 1,246. 

B.8.4 QA Issues 

 Where appropriate, data element field names were renamed for the final dataset (see 

Exhibit B.20). The data clean-up process was very involved after State clarification on unknown 

codes and code combinations. “System Type” data elements were changed to match the States 

that used the Extraction Tool. COMM=C; NTNC=no change; TNC=NC. “Source Water” data 

elements were changed to match rest of the dataset. GUI=GU; PGW=GWP; PSW=SWP; 

GW=no change; SW=no change. For RESULT: s=safe, u=unsafe, n=negative or TC-, e=EC+, 

i=invalid, etc.; For SAMTYPE: r=routine, c=check or repeat, s=special, i=invalid. Exhibit B.22 

below details how each code and code combination was handled based on State clarification. 

Exhibit B.22 Ohio Data Dictionary 

RESULT SAMTYPE Interpretation/ 

Action Taken 

u c 

TC+ 

u r 

u s 

u,cg c 

u,cg s 

u,hbc c 

u,hbc i 

u,hbc r 

u,hbc s 

u/50 s 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-31 June 2010 

RESULT SAMTYPE Interpretation/ 

Action Taken 

u/cg r 

u/cg s 

u/hbc c 

u/hbc r 

u/hbc s 

a r 

TCn c 

n i 

n r 

n s 

s c 

s i 

s r 

s s 

s' r 

s # r 

s 3 s 

s 4 s 

s c r 

s l r 

s 246 c 

s wel s 

s'#1 r 

s,bhc i 

s,cg i 

s,hbc i 

s/ec- c 

s/hbc c 

s/hbc r 

s/hbc s 

s` r 

sa r 

sconf i 

shbc c 

shbc i 

shbc r 

shbcf i 

sphin s 

ss c 

ss r 

ss s 

ssink r 

su c 

swell r 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-32 June 2010 

RESULT SAMTYPE Interpretation/ 

Action Taken 

e c 

EC+ 

e i 

e r 

e s 

e,hbc r 

e+ c 

e+ r 

e+ s 

u/e+ s 

u/ec+ c 

u/ec+ r 

u/ec+ s 

u/ec c 

EC- u/ec- c 

u/ec- r 

u/ec- s 

u/f+ s 

FC+ u/fc+ c 

u/fc+ r 

u/fc+ s 

u/fc- c 

u/fc- r FCu/fc- s 

(Blank) (Blank) 

Delete (Blank) c 

(Blank) r 

(Blank) s 

i c 

Delete - Invalid 

i r 

inval r 

invld c 

n/a c 

n/a r 

n/a s 

n/hbc c 

n/hbc r 

na c 

na i 

na r 

na s 

na` r 

nahbc r 

n-cnf r 

hbc r Delete - 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-33 June 2010 

RESULT SAMTYPE Interpretation/ 

Action Taken 

i,hbc c Invalid/High 

i/hbc r Background Count

i\hbc r 

 Ohio did not provide data for Population Served. This data element field was populated 

using the SDWIS 4thQ 2005 inventory. Ohio only entered one single result for every sample, 

e.g., although EC assays were always triggered by a TC+ result, only the EC assay result was 

recorded. Therefore, additional records were added to match the format of the 37-State dataset.
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-34 June 2010 

B.9 VIRGINIA 

B.9.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.23 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

Virginia to the final data element fields used in the dataset. 

Exhibit B.23 Virginia Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element 

Field Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

PWSID PWSID_Number 

PWSName PWSID_Name 

-- System_Type 

-- Population_Served 

-- Source_Water 

Sampling_Point_Number 

SampleID Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

-- Source_Water_Treatment 

-- Facility_ID_Number 

Location Sampling_Point_Text 

LabID Lab_Sample_Number 

CollectDate Date_Sample_Taken 

-- Date_Sample_Analyzed 

SDWISSampleType Sample_Type 

-- Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

-- Analytical_Method 

-- Analyte_Name 

-- Analyte_Code 

-- Presence_Absence_Result 

TCResult & FEColiResult -- 

Used to populate Presence 

Absence, Analyte Name, and 

Analyte Code columns. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 Virginia personnel provided some clarification by telephone. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-35 June 2010 

Narrative of Issues 

 Virginia did not include data for System Type, Population Served, and Source Water. 

These data element fields were populated using the SDWIS 2005 inventory. 

B.9.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.24 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Virginia. 

Exhibit B.24 Virginia – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

Difference 

2005 SDWIS37-State 

Dataset 

Total 3,089 3,091 -0.06% 

<101 TNCWS 775 787 -2% 

<101 NTNCWS 233 235 -1% 

<101 CWS 433 441 -2% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 398 397 0% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 245 253 -3% 

101 to 500 CWS 402 410 -2% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 64 65 -2% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 82 83 -1% 

501 to 1000 CWS 113 116 -3% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 9 9 0% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 35 35 0% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 161 161 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 2 1 50% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 3 2 33% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 93 79 15% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 1 0 100% 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 25 11 56% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 15 6 60% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-36 June 2010 

B.9.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Virginia: 

The total number of samples included is 63,447. 

The total number of routine samples included is 59,874. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 58,786. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 1,088. 

B.9.4 QA Issues 

Interpretation of Codes 

 The data clean-up process was very involved after clarification of unknown codes and 

code combinations. Data elements were changed according the data dictionary definitions seen 

in Exhibits B.25. This information was used to populate the Presence Absence field. Any data 

element that did not fit the descriptions below was deleted from the dataset. 

 

Exhibit B.25 Virginia Data Dictionary 

TC & FC Result Interpretation 

“<” TC-, FC- 

“>” TC+, FC+ 

Any non-zero value TC+ , FC+ 

“A”, “Absent”, “NA”, 

“ND” TC- , FC- 

“P” TC+, FC+ 

Note: VA did only FC assays on TC+ results. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-37 June 2010 

B.10 WISCONSIN 

B.10.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.26 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

Wisconsin to the final data element fields used in the dataset. Wisconsin included additional 

data element fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used in the 

final analyses. These data element fields were deleted from the final dataset and are not included 

in data element fields listed in Exhibit B.26. 

Exhibit B.26 Wisconsin Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element Field 

Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

DNR Public Water Supply ID PWSID_Number 

Federal PWSID equals ‘WI’ prefix 

plus the first 7-digits of the WI 8-

digit ID. 

System Name PWSID_Name 

System Type System_Type 

Codes State used weren’t 

common – needed to change them 

to be consistent with other States’ 

data. 

Population Population_Served 

- Source_Water Used SDWIS 2005 inventory to 

populate this field. 

Sample ID Sampling_Point_Number 

Sample Source Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

- Source_Water_Treatment 

- Facility_ID_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Text 

- Lab_Sample_Number 

Sample Date Date_Sample_Taken 

- Date_Sample_Analyzed 

Sample type Sample_Type 

Codes State used weren’t 

common – needed to change them 

to be consistent with other States’ 

data. 

- Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

Analysis Method Analytical_Method 

Contaminant Analyte_Name 

Also used in combination with 

Measured Amount and Units to 

populate Presence Absence 

Result field 

CONTAM_CODE Analyte_Code 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-38 June 2010 

Original Data Element Field 

Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

- Presence_Absence_Result Used a combination of codes to 

interpret P/A result. 

Measured Amount - Used in combination with 

Contaminant to populate Presence Units - Absence Result field. 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 Clarification was received on how to interpret the PWSIDs that the State submitted. 

 Confirmation and clarification was received on a number of codes used by Wisconsin. 

Cadmus contacted the State with a list of unknown codes and code combinations and possible 

interpretations for some. The State responded with an updated list that defined or provided 

direction for each code/code combination. Clarification was received on how to interpret code 

combinations in order to populate P/A Result data element field. 

Narrative of Issues 

 Wisconsin did not use Federal PWSID for system identification. A number of unfamiliar 

codes/code combinations were used. Source Water was not included in the data set submitted by 

the State. The State was contacted to clarify and get a data dictionary in order to better 

understand the data Wisconsin had submitted. The data clean-up process was very involved after 

State clarification. 

B.10.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.27 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Wisconsin. 

Exhibit B.27 Wisconsin – Number of Systems by Population Served and System 

Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

ifference 

2005 SDWIS37-State 

Dataset 

Total 11,410 1,1132 2% 

<101 TNCWS 7,819 7,589 3% 

<101 NTNCWS 488 434 11% 

<101 CWS 333 331 1% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 1,453 1,445 1% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 366 373 -2% 

101 to 500 CWS 261 259 1% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 83 90 -8% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-39 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

ifference 

2005 SDWIS37-State 

Dataset 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 67 70 -4% 

501 to 1000 CWS 130 128 2% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 27 26 4% 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 19 21 -11% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 217 218 0% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 1 0% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 126 129 -2% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 15 13 13% 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 4 4 0% 

B.10.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Wisconsin: 

The total number of samples included is 145,855. 

The total number of routine samples included is 140,769. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 139,606. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 1,163. 

B.10.4 QA Issues 

PWSIDs 

 The PWSIDs that Wisconsin submitted were changed in order to reflect Federal PWSID 

format. The Federal PWSID equals a ‘WI’ prefix plus the first 7-digits of the State’s 8-digit 

system ID. 

Source Water 

 Source water data was not included in the data set submitted by the State. The source 

water data in the SDWIS 2005 inventory was used to populate this field for the final 37-State 

data set. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-40 June 2010 

Consistency with SDWIS Extraction Tool 

 

Where appropriate, data element fields were renamed for the final dataset (see Exhibit 

B.26). Data elements in the “System Type” data element field were converted to be consistent 

with SDWIS Extraction Tool data elements (P=NTNC; N=NC). Records with “NP” (nonpublic) in the “System Type” field were deleted. The State did not include data in “Analyte 

Code” field. Used the “Analyte Name” field to populate the “Analyte Code” data element field 

(i.e., COLIFORM (TCR)=3100, FECAL COLIFORM=3013, COLIFORM, E. COLI=3014). 

Interpretation of Codes 

 The data clean-up process was very involved after State clarification of unknown codes 

and code combinations. Data elements were changed according to the data dictionary definitions 

seen in Exhibits B.28 – B.31. 

Exhibit B.28 Wisconsin System Type Data Dictionary 

Code Interpretation System Type Used 

MC Municipal community CWS 

C Non-transient, non-community NTNCWS 

OC Other than municipal, 

community CWS 

TN Transient, non-community TNCWS 

Exhibit B.29 Wisconsin Status of the Water Supply System Data Dictionary 

Code Interpretation Action Taken 

A Active Included C Combined 

D Destroyed 

Deleted 

I Inactive 

M On Municipal water 

N New, not yet serving public 

R Private, serves fewer than 25 

T Temporarily closed 

X Duplicate 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-41 June 2010 

Exhibit B.30 Wisconsin Status of the Sampled Well Data Dictionary 

Code Interpretation Action Taken 

A Active Included 

1 Temporarily abandoned 

Deleted 

Deleted 

2 Permanently abandoned 

3 Temporarily out of service 

I Inactive 

N New, not yet serving public 

R Reconstructed 

Exhibit B.31 Wisconsin Sample Type Data Dictionary 

Code Interpretation Sample Type Used 

C Check Sample Repeat Sample 

D Compliance sample Routine Sample 

R Repeat (Baceriological only) Repeat Sample 

G Grab Sample 

Excluded 

I Investigation 

N New, (bacteriological only) 

O Other 

P Plant finished (bacteriological 

only) 

U ? 

W Raw water 

 The “Presence Absence Result” data element field was populated using the data elements 

and interpretations seen in Exhibit B.32 below. 

Exhibit B.32 Wisconsin Presence Absence Result Data Dictionary 

Measured 

Amount Units Contaminant 

Final 

Interpretation 

0 /100 ML Coliform (TCR) TCAny positive 

number /100 ML Coliform (TCR) TC+ 

0 /100 ML 

ENTEROCOCCI /100 

ML 

FC0 /100 ML FECAL coliform FCAny value NEGATIVE Coliform (TCR) TCAny value NEGATIVE FECAL coliform FC- 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-42 June 2010 

Measured 

Amount Units Contaminant 

Final 

Interpretation 

Any value POSITIVE Coliform (TCR) TC+ 

Any value POSITIVE FECAL coliform FC+ 

Note: EC apparently was not used by WI in 2005 as an analyte; EPA therefore interpreted the 

enterococci analyte as an FC test, and based on having 0 measured amount, it was considered 

negative. 

B.11 REGION 9 TRIBAL 

B.11.1 Description of Data 

Crosswalk of Data Fields 

 Exhibit B.33 is a side-by-side comparison of the original data element fields submitted by 

Region 9 Tribal to the final data element fields used in the dataset. Region 9 Tribal included 

additional data element fields that were not needed in interpreting the data and that were not used 

in the final analyses. These data element fields were deleted from the final dataset and are not 

included in data element fields listed in Exhibit B.33. 

Exhibit B.33 Region 9 Tribal Data Element Fields 

Original Data Element Field 

Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

Public Water System 

Identification Number (PWSID) PWSID_Number 

System Name PWSID_Name 

Federal Public Water System 

Type Code System_Type 

Changed data elements to 

match codes used by the 

Extraction Tool 

Population Served Population_Served 

Source Water Type Source_Water 

Changed data elements to 

match codes used by the 

Extraction Tool 

- Sampling_Point_Number 

- Sampling_Point_Relative_Location 

Sample Analysis Type Code Source_Water_Treatment 

Changed data elements to 

match codes used by the 

Extraction Tool 

- Facility_ID_Number 

Sampling Point Identification 

Code Sampling_Point_Text 

Sample Identification Number Lab_Sample_Number 

Sample Collection Date Date_Sample_Taken 

- Date_Sample_Analyzed 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-43 June 2010 

Original Data Element Field 

Names Final Data Element Field Names Comments 

Sample Purpose Sample_Type 

Changed data elements to 

match codes used by the 

Extraction Tool 

Sample Analysis Type Code Repeat_Sample_Relative_Location 

Changed data elements to 

match codes used by the 

Extraction Tool 

Sample Analytical Method 

Number Analytical_Method 

- Analyte_Name Used data from “Analyte Code” 

field to populate. 

Contaminant Analyte_Code 

Sample Analytical Result - Sign Presence_Absence_Result 

Changed data elements to 

match codes used by the 

Extraction Tool 

Summary of State Correspondence 

 No significant correspondence with State personnel. 

Narrative of Issues 

 The State did not use the same codes as the SDWIS Extraction Tool for System Type, 

Source Water, Source Water Treatment, Repeat Sample Relative Location, Sample Type, or 

Presence Absence Result. Data was not provided for “Analyte Name.” The State used the same 

data element field to provide data for “Source Water Treatment” and “Repeat Sample Relative 

Location.” 

B.11.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit B.34 is a side-by-side comparison of the number of systems in the SDWIS 

inventory and the number of systems in the data provided by Region 9 Tribal. 

Exhibit B.34 Region 9 Tribal – Number of Systems by Population Served and 

System Type 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

Difference 

2005 SDWIS37-State 

Dataset 

Total 485 339 30% 

<101 TNCWS 24 26 -8% 

<101 NTNCWS 13 12 8% 

<101 CWS 93 67 28% 

101 to 500 TNCWS 13 12 8% 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 17 17 0% 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-44 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

Percent 

Difference 

2005 SDWIS37-State 

Dataset 

101 to 500 CWS 163 111 32% 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 2 2 0% 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 4 3 25% 

501 to 1000 CWS 59 20 66% 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 9 12 -33% 

1001 to 4100 CWS 58 36 38% 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 8 6 25% 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 22 15 32% 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 0 0 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 0 

>96,000 CWS 0 0 

B.11.3 Number of Samples 

In the final dataset for Region 9 Tribal: 

The total number of samples included is 9,767. 

The total number of routine samples included is 8,764. 

The total number of routine TC samples included is 8,450. 

The total number of routine EC and FC samples included is 314. 

B.11.4 QA Issues 

Consistency with SDWIS Extraction Tool 

 Where appropriate, data element fields were renamed for the final dataset (see Exhibit 

B.33). Re-coded data elements in “System Type” field to match Extraction Tool data elements: 

Community=C; Non-Transient Non-Community (NTNC)=NTNC; Transient NonCommunity=NC. Re-coded data elements in “Source Water” field to match Extraction Tool data 

elements: Ground water=GW; Surface water=SW. Re-coded data elements in “Sample Type” 

field to match Extraction Tool data elements: compliance/routine=RT; repeat=RP Re-coded data 

elements in “Source Water Treatment” field to match Extraction Tool data elements: Finished 

(Treated) water sample=FN. Re-coded data elements in “Repeat Sample Point Relative 

Location” field to match Extraction Tool data elements: Original=OR; Other=OT; 

Downstream=DN; Unknown=UN; Upstream=UP. Re-coded data elements in “Presence 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 B-45 June 2010 

Absence Result” field to match Extraction Tool data elements: Absence=A; Presence=P. The 

federally recognized codes from “Analyte Code” field were used to populate “Analyte Name” 

data element field. The State used the same data element field to provide data for “Source Water 

Treatment” and “Repeat Sample Relative Location.” The original data element field was 

separated into the correct final fields. 
Appendix C 

Summary of States Not Included in the Final Dataset: 

State-by-State Breakout 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-i June 2010 

Contents 

C.1 Submitted Data Not Used in the Final Dataset ................................................................ C-1 

C.1.1 ALABAMA .............................................................................................................. C-2 

C.1.2 AMERICAN SAMOA ............................................................................................. C-4 

C.1.3 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA .................................................................................... C-6 

C.1.4 MAINE ..................................................................................................................... C-8 

C.1.5 MARYLAND ......................................................................................................... C-10 

C.1.6 NEW JERSEY ........................................................................................................ C-12 

C.1.7 SOUTH CAROLINA ............................................................................................. C-14 

C.1.8 SOUTH DAKOTA ................................................................................................. C-16 

C.1.9 TENNESSEE .......................................................................................................... C-18

C.1.10 NAVAJO NATION ................................................................................................ C-20 

C.2 States Not Submitting Data ............................................................................................ C-22 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-1 June 2010 

C.1 Submitted Data Not Used in the Final Dataset 

 For each State that submitted data that was not included in the final dataset, a description 

of the data, explanation of why the data were not used, and QA issues will be presented. 

 Because the data from these States was screened out from the final dataset that was used, 

no data cleaning was conducted for most data sets and the original data contain many systems 

that may have been screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was 

not created for these States. In each State’s respective section below is the breakout of systems 

from the SDWIS 2005 inventory and a total number of systems count (when available) from the 

data that each State submitted. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-2 June 2010 

C.1.1 ALABAMA 

C.1.1.1 Description of Data 

 Alabama used the SDWIS Extraction Tool to collect and report data. Fifty-eight percent 

of the submitted data is from 2005. The remaining data is from 2004. Many PWSs were missing 

from the data pull, and only 170 unique water systems had data submitted by the State. The 

majority (69 percent) of records were TCR repeat sample records, and only 39 percent were TCR 

routine samples. From the submitted data, only 18 records were routine samples that were TC 

negative. The submitted data were extremely incomplete, especially for TC negative data. 

Twenty-six percent of the submitted data were TCR positive samples. The State did not provide 

“Date Sample Analyzed” data elements; date difference comparison could not be conducted. No 

“Analytical Method” data elements were submitted. 

C.1.1.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Because the data from Alabama was screened out from the final dataset that was created, 

no data cleaning was conducted and the original data contains many systems that may have been 

screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was not created for this 

State. Exhibit C.1 below has the breakout of systems from the SDWIS 2005 inventory and a 

total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by the State. 

Exhibit C.1 Alabama System Inventory 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

Total 642 170 

<101 TNCWS 47 

<101 NTNCWS 4 

<101 CWS 6 

101 to 500 TNCWS 17 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 12 

101 to 500 CWS 31 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 1 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 8 

501 to 1000 CWS 55 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 6 

1001 to 4100 CWS 222 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 207 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-3 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 21 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 

>96,000 CWS 5 

C.1.1.3 Narrative of Issues 

 The data were not representative of conditions in the State, even for the few individual 

systems for which data were submitted. The data, therefore, were not used. 

C.1.1.4 Number of Records 

 The total number of records included in the submitted dataset for Alabama is 1,657. 

C.1.1.5 QA Issues 

 As noted above, many PWSs were missing from the data pull, and only 170 unique water 

systems had data submitted by the State. The majority (69 percent) of records were TCR repeat 

sample records, and only 39 percent were TCR routine samples. From the submitted data, only 

18 records were routine samples that were TC negative. The submitted data were extremely 

incomplete, especially for TC negative data. Twenty-six percent of the submitted data were TCR 

positive samples, and most of the rest were repeat samples. The vast majority of TC negative 

samples were not included in the data sent. This was assumed to be a state reporting issue rather 

than an issue of a) systems not reporting data or b) excessive violations, which would result in 

fewer negative samples being reported. 

 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-4 June 2010 

C.1.2 AMERICAN SAMOA 

C.1.2.1 Description of Data 

 The State submitted data in multiple formats and files. 

C.1.2.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Because the data from American Samoa was screened out from the final dataset that was 

created, no data cleaning was conducted and the original data contains many systems that may 

have been screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was not 

created for American Samoa. Exhibit C.2 below has the breakout of systems from the SDWIS 

2005 inventory and a total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by American 

Samoa. 

Exhibit C.2 American Samoa System Inventory 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

Total 19 ? 

<101 TNCWS 0 

<101 NTNCWS 0 

<101 CWS 3 

101 to 500 TNCWS 0 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 0 

101 to 500 CWS 12 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 0 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 0 

501 to 1000 CWS 3 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 0 

1001 to 4100 CWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 1 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 

>96,000 CWS 0 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-5 June 2010 

C.1.2.3 Narrative of Issues 

 Data from American Samoa included data in multiple files, were in inconsistent formats 

from each other and from the standard SDWIS/State format, and reflected few systems. 

C.1.2.4 Number of Records 

 The total number of records included in the submitted dataset for American Samoa is 

unable to be determined. 

C.1.2.5 QA Issues 

 See above. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-6 June 2010 

C.1.3 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

C.1.3.1 Description of Data 

 The State submitted data in a number of formats (i.e., Excel, Word, PDF, etc.) and files. 

C.1.3.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Because the data from the District of Columbia was screened out from the final dataset 

that was created, no data cleaning was conducted and the original data contains many systems 

that may have been screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was 

not created for the District of Columbia. Exhibit C.3 below has the breakout of systems from the 

SDWIS 2005 inventory and a total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by the 

District of Columbia. 

Exhibit C.3 District of Columbia System Inventory 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

Total 5 ? 

<101 TNCWS 0 

<101 NTNCWS 0 

<101 CWS 1 

101 to 500 TNCWS 0 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 1 

101 to 500 CWS 0 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 0 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 0 

501 to 1000 CWS 0 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 1 

1001 to 4100 CWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 1 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 0 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 

>96,000 CWS 1 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-7 June 2010 

C.1.3.3 Narrative of Issues 

 The District of Columbia submitted data from several plants/locations with sample 

results, but the data were in formats inconsistent with each other and with the SDWIS/State 

format. Although it was judged to be good data, the effort to transform it into a useable form was 

judged disproportionate to its value, so it was not used. 

C.1.3.4 Number of Records 

 The total number of records included in the submitted dataset for the District of Columbia 

is unable to be determined. 

C.1.3.5 QA Issues 

 See above. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-8 June 2010 

C.1.4 MAINE 

C.1.4.1 Description of Data 

 The State used the SDWIS Extraction Tool to report their data. The submitted data did 

not distinguish between routine and repeat TC sample events. All TC samples are labeled “RP” 

(repeat sample). Region I spoke with the State and learned that Maine does not currently 

differentiate TC samples with routine vs. repeat. 

C.1.4.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Because the data from Maine was screened out from the final dataset that was created, no 

data cleaning was conducted and the original data contains many systems that may have been 

screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was not created for this 

State. Exhibit C.4 below has the breakout of systems from the SDWIS 2005 inventory and a 

total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by the State. 

Exhibit C.4 Maine System Inventory 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

Total 1979 2483 

<101 TNCWS 565 

<101 NTNCWS 171 

<101 CWS 186 

101 to 500 TNCWS 594 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 180 

101 to 500 CWS 87 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 43 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 22 

501 to 1000 CWS 30 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 4 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 4 

1001 to 4100 CWS 64 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 27 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 1 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-9 June 2010 

>96,000 CWS 1 

C.1.4.3 Narrative of Issues 

 The data set submitted by Maine did not distinguish between routine and repeat sample 

events; therefore, the data were not used. 

C.1.4.4 Number of Records 

 The total number of records included in the submitted dataset for Maine is 147,030.

C.1.4.5 QA Issues 

 See above. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-10 June 2010 

C.1.5 MARYLAND 

C.1.5.1 Description of Data 

 Maryland submitted data in a number of files. Maryland used a number of unfamiliar 

codes in their data submission. A number of emails were exchanged with the State in an effort to 

sufficiently clarify the submitted data. 

C.1.5.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Because the data from Maryland was screened out from the final dataset that was created, 

no data cleaning was conducted and the original data contains many systems that may have been 

screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was not created for this 

State. Exhibit C.5 below has the breakout of systems from the SDWIS 2005 inventory and a 

total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by the State. 

Exhibit C.5 Maryland System Inventory 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

Total 3669 3879 

<101 TNCWS 2250 

<101 NTNCWS 289 

<101 CWS 141 

101 to 500 TNCWS 282 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 188 

101 to 500 CWS 182 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 47 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 69 

501 to 1000 CWS 55 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 13 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 30 

1001 to 4100 CWS 71 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 40 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 6 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 

>96,000 CWS 5 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-11 June 2010 

C.1.5.3 Narrative of Issues 

 The data from Maryland was submitted in a number of files. Maryland used a number of 

unfamiliar codes in their data submission. A number of emails were exchanged with the State in 

an effort to sufficiently clarify the submitted data. Not all of Maryland’s data was stored 

electronically. The data showed that about 16 percent of the total coliform samples were positive, 

which indicates a highly biased data set that does not have complete data. The data were not 

used. 

 

C.1.5.4 Number of Records 

 The total number of records included in the submitted dataset for Maryland is 78,522.

C.1.5.5 QA Issues 

 See above. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-12 June 2010 

C.1.6 NEW JERSEY 

C.1.6.1 Description of Data 

 The State used the SDWIS Extraction Tool in order to report their data. 

C.1.6.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Because the data from New Jersey was screened out from the final dataset that was 

created, no data cleaning was conducted and the original data contains many systems that may 

have been screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was not 

created for this State. Exhibit C.6 below has the breakout of systems from the SDWIS 2005 

inventory and a total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by the State. 

Exhibit C.6 New Jersey System Inventory 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

Total 3994 698 

<101 TNCWS 1608 

<101 NTNCWS 418 

<101 CWS 97 

101 to 500 TNCWS 792 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 283 

101 to 500 CWS 122 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 114 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 86 

501 to 1000 CWS 48 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 43 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 53 

1001 to 4100 CWS 100 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 5 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 173 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 38 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 

>96,000 CWS 13 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-13 June 2010 

C.1.6.3 Narrative of Issues 

 About 50 percent of the total coliform routine samples were positive, indicating a highly 

biased data set. The data were not used. 

C.1.6.4 Number of Records 

 The total number of records included in the submitted dataset for New Jersey is 9,273.

C.1.6.5 QA Issues 

See above. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-14 June 2010 

C.1.7 SOUTH CAROLINA 

C.1.7.1 Description of Data 

 The State did not use the SDWIS Extraction Tool in order to report their data. 

C.1.7.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Exhibit C.7 below has the breakout of systems from the SDWIS 2005 inventory and a 

total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by the State. 

Exhibit C.7 South Carolina System Inventory 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

Total 1410 282 

<101 TNCWS 526 

<101 NTNCWS 76 

<101 CWS 189 

101 to 500 TNCWS 66 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 66 

101 to 500 CWS 156 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 4 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 14 

501 to 1000 CWS 57 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 6 

1001 to 4100 CWS 116 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 114 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 15 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 

>96,000 CWS 4 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-15 June 2010 

C.1.7.3 Narrative of Issues 

 The data included in the dataset submitted by South Carolina only contained results for 

approximately half of the systems listed in SDWIS. 

C.1.7.4 Number of Records 

 South Carolina submitted data in two tables. The total number of records for both tables 

that was included in the submitted dataset is 56,188.

C.1.7.5 QA Issues 

 Cleanup was conducted on the South Carolina data set. After cleanup was completed, 

South Carolina was found to only contain results for approximately half of the systems listed in 

SDWIS. Given the incompleteness of data, the decision was made to exclude these data from the 

final data set and from final analyses. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-16 June 2010 

C.1.8 SOUTH DAKOTA 

C.1.8.1 Description of Data 

 The State did not use the SDWIS Extraction Tool in order to report their data. South 

Dakota used a number of unfamiliar codes in their data submission, and the PWSIDs that the 

State used in their submission are not in Federal PWSID format. A number of emails were 

exchanged with the State in an effort to sufficiently clarify the submitted data. Ultimately, the 

data from South Dakota was not included because too few systems were included in the dataset. 

C.1.8.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Because the data from South Dakota was screened out from the final dataset that was 

created, no data cleaning was conducted and the original data contains many systems that may 

have been screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was not 

created for this State. Exhibit C.8 below has the breakout of systems from the SDWIS 2005 

inventory and a total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by the State. 

Exhibit C.8 South Dakota System Inventory 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

Total 672 221 

<101 TNCWS 133 

<101 NTNCWS 14 

<101 CWS 121 

101 to 500 TNCWS 46 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 11 

101 to 500 CWS 180 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 4 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 3 

501 to 1000 CWS 63 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 4 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 0 

1001 to 4100 CWS 67 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 1 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 23 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 1 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-17 June 2010 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 

>96,000 CWS 1 

C.1.8.3 Narrative of Issues 

 A number of unfamiliar codes were used in the data submission, and the PWSIDs that the 

State used in their submission are not in Federal PWSID format. The dataset had few systems 

and was not representative of the State. 

C.1.8.4 Number of Records 

 The total number of records included in the submitted dataset for South Dakota is 16,383.

C.1.8.5 QA Issues 

 See above. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-18 June 2010 

C.1.9 TENNESSEE 

C.1.9.1 Description of Data 

C.1.9.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Because the data from Tennessee was screened out from the final dataset that was 

created, no data cleaning was conducted and the original data contains many systems that may 

have been screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was not 

created for this State. Exhibit C.9 below has the breakout of systems from the SDWIS 2005 

inventory and a total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by the State. 

Exhibit C.9 Tennessee System Inventory 

Population 

Served System Type

Number of Systems 

2005 SDWIS State Dataset 

Total 1129 979 

<101 TNCWS 261 

<101 NTNCWS 16 

<101 CWS 41 

101 to 500 TNCWS 123 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 15 

101 to 500 CWS 109 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 11 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 4 

501 to 1000 CWS 134 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 4 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 6 

1001 to 4100 CWS 183 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 1 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 2 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 192 

33,001 to 96,000 TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 NTNCWS 0 

33,001 to 96,000 CWS 22 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 

>96,000 CWS 5 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-19 June 2010 

C.1.9.3 Narrative of Issues 

 Data were reported only as monthly summaries, and positive samples were not identified 

as to whether they were a routine or repeat sample. 

C.1.9.4 Number of Records 

 The total number of records included in the submitted dataset for Tennessee is 65,168. 

C.1.9.5 QA Issues 

 See above.
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-20 June 2010 

C.1.10 NAVAJO NATION 

C.1.10.1 Description of Data 

 The State did not use the SDWIS Extraction Tool in order to report their data. Repeat and 

routine data were submitted in two separate tables. Navajo Nation used a number of unfamiliar 

codes and code combinations in their data reporting. An effort was made to contact Navajo 

Nation in order to clarify the submitted data; no response was received from Navajo Nation. 

C.1.10.2 System Inventory Comparison 

 Because the data from Navajo Nation was screened out from the final dataset that was 

created, no extensive data cleaning was conducted, and the original data contains many systems 

that may have been screened out during the cleaning process. Therefore, a comparable table was 

not created for Navajo Nation. Exhibit C.9 below has the breakout of systems from the SDWIS 

2005 inventory and a total number of systems count from the dataset submitted by Navajo 

Nation. 

Exhibit C.10 Navajo Nation System Inventory 

Population 

Served 

System 

Type 

Number of Systems 

2005 

SDWIS 

State 

Dataset 

Total 159 187 

<101 TNCWS 2 

<101 NTNCWS 2 

<101 CWS 20 

101 to 500 TNCWS 2 

101 to 500 NTNCWS 1 

101 to 500 CWS 58 

501 to 1000 TNCWS 0 

501 to 1000 NTNCWS 1 

501 to 1000 CWS 41 

1001 to 4100 TNCWS 0 

1001 to 4100 NTNCWS 1 

1001 to 4100 CWS 24 

4101 to 33,000 TNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 NTNCWS 0 

4101 to 33,000 CWS 7 

33,001 to 

96,000 

TNCWS 0 

33,001 to 

96,000 

NTNCWS 0 

33,001 to 

96,000 

CWS 0 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-21 June 2010 

Population 

Served 

System 

Type 

Number of Systems 

2005 

SDWIS 

State 

Dataset 

>96,000 TNCWS 0 

>96,000 NTNCWS 0 

>96,000 CWS 0 

C.1.10.3 Narrative of Issues 

 Repeat and routine data were submitted in two separate tables. Navajo Nation used a 

number of unfamiliar codes and code combinations in their data reporting. An effort was made 

to contact the State in order to clarify the submitted data. No response was received from Navajo 

Nation; therefore, the data were not included in the final data analyses. 

C.1.10.4 Number of Records 

 The total number of records included in the submitted dataset for Navajo Nation is 

37,992. 

C.1.10.5 QA Issues 

 See above 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 C-22 June 2010 

C.2 States Not Submitting Data 

 Some States chose not to submit data or did not respond to the request for data. A few 

large States (e.g., California, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington) did not submit data and are 

not included in any data analyses. Exhibit C.11 details each State that is not submitting data, the 

reason data were not submitted, and the number of systems for that State from the 2005 SDWIS 

inventory. 

Exhibit C.11 States Not Submitting Data 

State Not 

Submitting Data Reason No Data Submitted Number of Systems – 2005 SDWIS 

California 

State chose not to submit data. TCR 

data is not stored electronically; 

TCR data is on paper in field office 

7,425 

Guam State did not respond to request for 

data. 12 

Hawaii State has no TCR data. 127 

Louisiana State did not respond to request for 

data. 1,542 

Massachusetts 

State chose not to submit data. 

State does not store TC, FC, EC, or 

residual data electronically. 

1,706 

Mississippi State did not respond to request for 

data. 1,350 

Northern Mariana 

Islands 

State did not respond to request for 

data. 127 

Pennsylvania State chose not to submit data. 9,755 

Puerto Rico State did not respond to request for 

data. 529 

Texas State never sent TCR data. 6,541 

Virgin Islands State did not respond to request for 

data. 302 

Washington State chose not to submit data. 4,107 

TOTAL 33,523 
Appendix D 

State ICR Data Request Letter 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 D-1 June 2010 

Mr./Ms. Xxxxx Xxxxxxx 

Position 

Office / Department 

Address 

City, State Zipcode 

Dear Mr./Ms. Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, 

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments require the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to review and revise, if appropriate, existing National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) at least every six years (i.e., the Six Year Review). The 

Agency completed its first Six Year Review in 2003, and the statutory deadline for completing 

the second Six Year Review is the summer of 2009. 

To support the second Six Year Review, EPA is contacting each Primacy Agency and 

requesting voluntary submission of its compliance monitoring data for regulated chemical, 

radiological, and microbiological contaminants that were collected between January 1998 and 

December 2005. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information 

collection requirements for EPA's second Six Year Review under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2040-

0275. 

These data are an important component in supporting EPA's second Six Year Review of 

NPDWRs. We are encouraging each Primacy Agency to submit its occurrence information 

because these data will directly contribute to EPA's understanding of national contaminant 

occurrence, populations exposed to regulated contaminants, and exposure reductions associated 

with the current regulations. Because our statutory timeframe for completing the second Six 

Year Review is the summer of 2009, we are kindly asking for your voluntary submission by June 

1, 2007. 

EPA is requesting only data that are currently stored electronically (no paper records), 

including both detection and non-detection results for routine compliance monitoring. 

Attachment A to this letter provides a list of the regulated contaminants for which EPA is 

requesting data. It also answers questions about how the data will be transferred, managed, and 

used. In Exhibit 2 of Attachment A, we identify the critical data elements needed for each 

sample result. To make your voluntary reporting as easy as possible, your Primacy Agency can 

transmit its compliance monitoring data set to EPA by whatever electronic means is most 

convenient (see Attachment A for the data submission options). Attachment A also provides 

some background information about why we are requesting these data.
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 D-2 June 2010 

Through our previous work with your program, we have worked closely with Yyyy Yyyyyy, 

who is copied on this request. As we move forward with collecting these drinking water 

occurrence data, we will be coordinating directly with Primacy Agencies by phone and/or email. 

Soon after May 1, 2007 we will begin contacting data managers. Please let us know if you prefer 

we work with another staff person.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions about this 

request or the intended uses of the data, please contact our co-Team Leads for the second Six 

Year Review, Karen Wirth at 202-564-5246 or Rajiv Khera at 202-564-4881. 

Sincerely, 

Cynthia C. Dougherty 

Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 

cc: Yyyy Yyyyyyy

Enclosure: Attachment A 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 D-3 June 2010 

ATTACHMENT A 

I. Details Regarding EPA's Request for Occurrence Data Request

A. What regulated contaminants are included in this request? 

EPA is requesting information for chemical contaminants that are regulated under Phase I, II, 

IIb, and V Rules; the Arsenic Rule; the Lead and Copper Rule (tap monitoring data only), and 

the Radionuclides Rule. In addition, EPA is requesting data collected for the Total Coliform 

Rule. Exhibit 1, below, lists the specific contaminants for which EPA is requesting monitoring 

data. If it is easier for you to provide the electronic data for all regulated contaminants, EPA will 

extract the data needed for the second Six Year Review (Six Year Review 2). 

Exhibit 1: Regulated Contaminants for Which Occurrence Data Are Requested 

Chemical Contaminants (Phase I, II, IIB, and V Rules; Arsenic Rule; Lead and Copper Rule)

Acrylamide 1,1-Dichloroethylene Methoxychlor 

Alachlor cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene Monochlorobenzene (Chlorobenzene) 

Antimony trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene Nitrate (as N) 

Arsenic Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) Nitrite (as N) 

Asbestos 1,2-Dichloropropane Oxamyl (Vydate) 

Atrazine Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate (DEHA) Pentachlorophenol 

Barium Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) Picloram 

Benzene Dinoseb Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 

Benzo[a]pyrene Diquat Selenium 

Beryllium Endothall Simazine 

Cadmium Endrin Styrene 

Carbofuran Epichlorohydrin 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin ) 

Carbon tetrachloride Ethylbenzene Tetrachloroethylene 

Chlordane Ethylene dibromide (EDB) Thallium 

Chromium (total) Fluoride Toluene 

Copper Glyphosate Toxaphene 

Cyanide Heptachlor 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 

2,4-D Heptachlor epoxide 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 

Dalapon Hexachlorobenzene 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 

(o-Dichlorobenzene) Lead Trichloroethylene 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 

(p-Dichlorobenzene) Lindane Vinyl chloride 

1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene 

dichloride) Mercury (inorganic) Xylenes (total) 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 D-4 June 2010 

Exhibit 1: Regulated Contaminants for Which Occurrence Data Are Requested 

Radiological Contaminants

Combined Radium-226/228; and 

Radium-226 & Radium-228 (if 

available)

Gross beta Tritium 

Iodine-131 

Uranium 

Gross alpha Strontium-90 

Microbiological Contaminants 

Total coliforms Fecal coliforms Escherichia coli (E. coli) 

B. What specific data are being requested and what timeframe should the data cover? 

EPA is requesting the voluntary submission of occurrence data for regulated chemical, 

radiological, and microbiological contaminants (Exhibit 1) that were collected between January 

1998 and December 2005.1 This request only includes those data that you have stored in 

electronic format. The requested data include routine compliance monitoring samples 

(including repeat and confirmation samples). Please include all results for both analytical 

detections and non-detections.

Exhibit 2 (pages A-3 and A-4) lists the data elements that are likely to be in your compliance 

monitoring database. EPA is requesting that, at a minimum, you provide the nine data elements 

that are in bold and marked with an asterisk (to enable dependable occurrence analyses). If you 

prefer to submit your data with only these nine data elements, EPA will use Public Water Supply 

Identification Numbers (PWSIDs) to link to additional system inventory data from SDWIS/Fed, 

adjusted as necessary using EPA's Needs Survey and the Community Water System Survey. We 

also encourage you to send us the compliance data even if you feel that your data set is 

incomplete, perhaps due to waivers and exemptions, etc. Please note that in the following two 

cases, the requested compliance monitoring data are unique: 

• Radiological contaminants: In addition to the other radiological contaminant data, EPA 

is requesting data on combined radium-226/radium-228, and if available, on radium-226 

and radium-228 separately. 

• Total Coliform Rule: EPA is requesting presence/absence of total coliforms at coliform 

sampling sites. EPA welcomes any disinfection residuals data at the TCR monitoring 

sites, if this is convenient to provide with the other requested data being submitted. 

Voluntary submission of your regulated drinking water contaminant occurrence 

data is the most critical step in this national occurrence assessment. 

 

1

 A few States may have submitted some of this information for the first Six Year Review (Six Year 1) or the 

Chemical Monitoring Reform (CMR). However, this is a unique request, in that several requested contaminants 

were not submitted previously for Six Year Review 1 or the CMR (i.e., acrylamide, arsenic, asbestos, copper, 

epichlorohydrin, lead, nitrate, nitrate, dioxin, and radionuclides), and the data previously submitted did not cover 

this full time period. Therefore, we request that States submit all of their relevant data, even if some data have been 

submitted previously. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 D-5 June 2010 

Exhibit 2: Requested Data Elements 

The 9 data elements in bold and marked with an asterisk (*) are needed to most effectively analyze the occurrence 

data; although ideally, we would like all 17 data elements to be submitted with the occurrence data.

Data Element Description

Inventory Data

* 

Public Water System 

Identification Number 

(PWSID) 

The code used to identify each PWS. The code begins with the standard 2-character 

postal State abbreviation or Region code; the remaining 7 numbers are unique to each 

PWS in the State. 

 System Name Name of the PWS. 

Federal Public Water 

System Type Code

A code to identify whether a system is: 

• Community Water System; 

• Non-transient Non-community Water System; or 

• Transient Non-community Water System. 

 Population Served Highest average daily number of people served by a PWS, when in operation. 

 Source Water Type 

Type of water at the source. Source water type can be: 

• Ground water; or 

• Surface water; or 

• Ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) (see note below)

Note: Some States may not distinguish GWUDI from surface water sources. In those 

States, a GWUDI source should be reported as a surface water source type. 

Sample-Specific Information

* Sampling Point 

Identification Code

A sampling point identifier established by the State, unique within each applicable 

facility, for each applicable sampling location (e.g., entry point to the distribution 

system). This information enables occurrence assessments that address intra-system 

variability. 

Sample Identification 

Number Identifier assigned by State or the laboratory that uniquely identifies a sample. 

* Sample Collection Date Date the sample is collected, including month, day and year. 

* Sample Purpose Indicates why the sample is being collected (e.g., compliance/routine, confirmation, 

duplicate, repeat, special, special duplicate, etc.). 

* Sample Analysis Type 

Code

Code for type of water sample collected. 

• Raw (Untreated) water sample 

• Finished (Treated) water sample

For lead and copper only:

• Source 

• Tap 

For TCR Repeats only; indicator of sampling location relative to sample point where 

positive sample was originally collected: 

• Upstream 

• Downstream 

• Original 

* Contaminant Contaminant name, 4-digit SDWIS contaminant identification number, or Chemical 

Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number for which the sample is being analyzed. 

* Sample Analytical Result 

- Sign

The sign indicates whether the sample analytical result was: 

• (<) "less than" means the contaminant was not detected or was detected at a level "less 

than" the minimum reporting level (MRL). 

• (=) "equal to" means the contaminant was detected at a level "equal to" the value 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 D-6 June 2010 

Exhibit 2: Requested Data Elements 

The 9 data elements in bold and marked with an asterisk (*) are needed to most effectively analyze the occurrence 

data; although ideally, we would like all 17 data elements to be submitted with the occurrence data.

Data Element Description

reported in "Sample Analytical Result - Value." 

For the TCR, results will be indicated by presence/absence. 

* Sample Analytical Result 

- Value

Actual numeric (decimal) value of the analysis for the chemical results, or the MRL if 

the analytical result is less than the contaminant's MRL. 

(Not required for TCR data)

* Sample Analytical Result 

- Unit of Measure

Unit of measurement for the analytical results reported (usually expressed in either ug/L 

or mg/L for chemicals; or pCi/l or mrem/yr for radionuclides). 

(Not required for TCR data)

Sample Analytical Method 

Number 

EPA identification number of the analytical method used to analyze the sample for a 

given contaminant. 

Minimum Reporting Level 

(MRL) - Value 

MRL refers to the lowest concentration of an analyte that may be reported. 

(Not required for TCR data)

 MRL - Unit of Measure Unit of measure to express the concentration value of a contaminant's MRL. 

(Not required for TCR data)

C. How can these data be submitted?

Transferring Data: We want to make this process as easy as possible for the Primacy Agencies 

that are volunteering to submit occurrence data. You can submit the data sets through electronic 

file transfer protocol (FTP) or by mailing/shipping CDs/DVDs (or other information storage 

formats). Primacy Agencies using SDWIS/State may be able to use a customized SDWIS/State 

query that is currently being tested. 

FTP: FTP is designed specifically for transferring (uploading and downloading) files over 

the Internet. To ensure security of your data, each Primacy Agency will only have access to 

its own data on the FTP site. In addition, data sets uploaded to the FTP site will be 

downloaded and removed within one working day of when they are uploaded and stored on a 

secured computer server that is not accessible via the FTP site. For added security, you can 

zip the files with a password (so that they can only be unzipped with the password). If 

possible, please scan all files for viruses before uploading them. 

The following information is needed to upload data set files for the Six Year Review via 

FTP: 

FTP site address: ftp://ftp.cadmusgroup.com

User Name: State

Password: ??????

Directory: /Incoming/SixYearData/State 

Notes: The username and password are case sensitive and must be typed exactly as they are 

here. Enable “Passive File Transfers” to ensure compatibility with the FTP site. Once 

connected to the FTP site, navigate to your Primacy Agencies’ upload folder. From here you 

will be able to upload files. Following upload, you can scroll through the file listing to verify 

that your files were uploaded successfully. If you have any questions, or if you choose to 

password-protect your files, please email: SixYearData@cadmusgroup.com. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 D-7 June 2010 

SHIPPING: If you choose to send CDs/DVDs of your data, this can be sent via U.S. Postal 

Service or commercial air carrier (such as FedEx or UPS) to: 

Six Year Data Coordinator 

The Cadmus Group, Inc. 

57 Water Street 

Watertown, MA 02472 

Phone: 617-673-7000 

QUERY: EPA is currently testing a customized query using existing SDWIS/State query 

tools that will pull the relevant data (specified in Exhibit 2, pages A-3 to A-4) from a 

SDWIS/State database. Primacy Agencies that use SDWIS/State for their data storage and 

management can request that EPA provide them with the customized query if it becomes 

available during these data collection efforts. If you are interested in having EPA provide 

you with a data query, please contact: Karen Wirth at 202-564-5246 or 

wirth.karen@epa.gov; or Rajiv Khera at 202-564-4881 or khera.rajiv@epa.gov. If your 

Primacy Agency has not migrated its historic drinking water data to the new SDWIS/State 

database, a separate data submission to include all data back to January 1998 is requested, so 

that the data included in the Agency’s Six Year review analysis is as complete and 

comparable as possible. 

File Format: Virtually any electronic file format is acceptable. It would be ideal for Primacy 

Agencies to submit their data sets in one of the following SAS-compatible file formats: dBaseTM

(.dbf); Microsoft Access tables (.mdb); comma or tab delimited files (such as .cvs or .txt), or; 

Microsoft Excel (.xls). However, you can submit the requested data "as is," by simply copying 

the compliance monitoring records in whatever structure or condition they are currently stored 

in, and submitting that copy of the electronic data to EPA. 

Data Formatting and Documentation: EPA is requesting that the data set structure be 

horizontal, with each analytical result occupying a discrete row accompanied by the system 

inventory and sample-specific data items listed in Exhibit 2. EPA also requests that your data 

sets include, at a minimum, a brief description of the basic format and structure of each data set, 

and definitions of all data elements, column/row headings, codes, acronyms, etc., used in each 

data set. This "data dictionary" information will reduce the amount of time needed for questions 

and clarification later. However, again, none of these requests are requirements. EPA's primary 

goal is to obtain the most complete national occurrence data possible, and the Agency will invest 

the resources to reconcile data questions where needed. If only the minimum data element 

information is provided with your submitted data, EPA will extract the additional inventory 

information using adjusted SDWIS/Fed information. However, at the very least, the PWSID 

number is needed with each contaminant sample result to enable linking to system inventory 

information. 

As noted, your Primacy Agency can transmit its compliance monitoring data set to EPA in 

whatever format or structure is most convenient. If it is easier for you to provide the electronic 

data for all regulated contaminants, EPA will extract the data needed for Six Year Review 2. If 

you have further questions about this data request, you can contact 

SixYearData@cadmusgroup.com. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 D-8 June 2010 

D. When do these data need to be submitted? 

To help EPA meet its Six Year Review 2 statutory timeframe of summer 2009 and in order to 

allow EPA time to compile, analyze and document the results of its review, EPA is asking that 

you please provide the requested monitoring data sets by June 1, 2007. 

II. Background Information Regarding EPA's Occurrence Data Request

A. Why is EPA requesting occurrence data?

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments require EPA to review and revise, if 

appropriate, existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) at least every six 

years (i.e., the Six Year Review). EPA is requesting occurrence data for regulated contaminants 

to support the second Six Year Review of NPDWRs. Through the Six Year Review process, 

EPA reviews and assesses risks to human health posed by regulated drinking water 

contaminants, and drinking water occurrence data are critical to these assessments. Without an 

understanding of where and at what levels these contaminants are occurring in public drinking 

water, EPA cannot assess any potential risk to public health. 

In addition, the 1996 SDWA Amendments require the Agency to maintain a national drinking 

water contaminant occurrence database (i.e., the National Contaminant Occurrence Database or 

NCOD) using occurrence data for both regulated and unregulated contaminants. Through this 

data collection, EPA will be fulfilling various requirements set forth by Congress in the 1996 

SDWA Amendments. 

B. How will these data be used? 

EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water will use the data to estimate the occurrence 

of regulated contaminants in public drinking water systems and to evaluate the number of people 

exposed. Combined with results of other technical analyses (such as assessments of contaminant 

health effects), the results of the occurrence and exposure analyses will be used to help determine 

whether potential revisions to the current drinking water regulations are likely to maintain or 

provide for the greater protection of public health (for those people served by public water 

systems) for Six Year Review 2. 

Once the Agency publishes its preliminary and final Federal Register Notices for Six Year 

Review 2, we will provide a comprehensive occurrence report, which will be available in the 

docket. The procedures used to analyze these data will reflect those established for the analysis 

of the 16 States data used for the first Six Year Review. You can obtain a copy of EPA's first 

Six Year Review methodology report, Occurrence Estimation Methodology and Occurrence 

Findings Report for the Six Year Regulatory Review of Existing National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations (EPA 815-R-03-006), by visiting our Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/review.html. This document contains all of the first Six Year 

Review occurrence findings and provides direct examples of the types of occurrence analyses 

that will be conducted using the compliance monitoring data you submit. 
TCR Compliance Monitoring Data Quality and Completion Report 

 D-9 June 2010 

C. Why is it important to submit these data?

Regulatory decisions and the public health protection resulting from these decisions are 

improved by both the quality and quantity of the data. Each Primacy Agency that submits data 

can be directly represented in any national occurrence estimates we develop. Their data will be 

used in the review of existing regulations to determine whether current NPDWRs remain 

appropriate or if revisions should be considered. All compliance monitoring data will undergo a 

comprehensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process required for the Six Year 

Review 2 statistical occurrence analyses. A copy of the resulting final, QA/QC'd data sets for 

your Primacy Agency will be available to you upon your request. 

D. What will happen once the data are submitted? 

EPA will conduct initial data editing and uniform QA/QC assessments on each data set. The 

data will also be assessed for general completeness and representativeness. 

Contaminant-specific analytical values will be assessed as part of the QA/QC review. For 

example, assessment of all analytical values for a specific contaminant will help identify possible 

unit errors or the presence of outliers. The data will also be checked for duplicate data entries (as 

defined by multiple rows of identical data elements) with duplicates deleted, as needed. 

Identified errors that do not have straight-forward solutions will be addressed through 

consultations with the appropriate Primacy Agency data management staff. 

Based on EPA's experience with occurrence information provided by States for the first Six Year 

Review, the Agency will likely need to contact some States to address questions regarding the 

data format and content (e.g., outlier values, or missing or undefined data elements). EPA will 

document the QA/QC process and all edits or changes made to the raw monitoring data. 

After the data have undergone QA/QC editing and formatting, the data sets will be aggregated 

into national contaminant occurrence data sets for each contaminant. The national aggregate 

data sets will be used to generate statistical estimations of national occurrence. When the 

analyses are completed and reported, the data will be placed in the NCOD and in the docket to 

support any Six Year Review 2 decisions.