March/April/May/June 2002

Contact: Robert Burns
(404) 562-9456

The Data Sharing Committee recently met and came to conclusion on several issues, and is further refining another issue that came before the committee. The Data Sharing Committee wrapped up its work on defining how analytical results and violations should be structured in SDWIS or its successor system. Subjects covered in this issue paper include: 1) whether Group Contaminant Codes should be allowed as a data entry method; 2) whether additional information on Monitoring Frequencies, Waivers, Grandfathering was necessary in the Federal data system; 3) whether States which have chosen to adopt more stringent regulations must report those violations; 4) whether EPA should continue to allow states to report Phase I, II, IIB, and V violations by either system or entry point; 5) if there was a universal approach to reporting health-based standards violations available that could enhance the usefulness of such data to the stakeholders; and, 6) if there is a consistent approach to reporting monitoring and reporting violations to SDWIS/FED that will eliminate some inconsistencies in determining the period of actual violation. The issue paper was sent on to the Data Management Steering Committee for their consideration at their Albuquerque meeting in May.

The Committee also took up an issue regarding the Regional Data Management Coordinators’ wish that we reexamine if the seasonal begin and end dates should be made mandatory reporting again. In 1998, they were dropped from the Core Data Set because the Committee felt that the data was too variable, had a tendency to be volatile, leading to its being unreliable in general. Because of a decision made to operate TCR/SWTR automatic addressing of SNC noncommunity water systems differently, the Coordinators stated a need for accurate season begin and end date. After discussion, the Committee held to its prior position that the data is volatile, changeable and sketchy. Different States update that information at different frequencies, and it was felt that Regions and other agencies needed to contact States when they had a real-time need for the data. The decision was made to retain the optional status of the season begin and end date. The issue paper was sent to the Coordinators and DWPD/Infrastructure Branch management.

Finally, the Committee took up the issue of fixed identifiers for Water System Facilities (sources, plants and entry points.) This issue mainly has to do with those States that generate treatments off of the source, instead of creating separate treatment plant records, then linking sources to those treatment plants. After discussing the pros and cons of fixed identifiers, as well as the forces within EPA that were moving us in that direction, we began to discuss the difficulty of implementing fixed identifiers prior to the next release of the SDWIS/FED software. Instead of issuing a recommendation at this time, the Committee is going to work on the implementation aspects, exploring with the SDWIS/FED team what options we could utilize. We will take the issue up again at our meeting in Albuquerque.

The Committee continues to look for Regional members with either Enforcement or Implementation perspectives. Please contact Jeff Bryan at (202) 564-3942 if you are interested in this very-part-time assignment.

Jeffrey Bryan
(202) 564-3942

At the last meeting, the full workgroup was informed of a briefing made by OEI, OECA and OGC to Kim Nelson recommending going forward with a simple rule with national guidance. Simple means 1) tweaking the current language on E-reporting, 2) developing state primacy reg revisions (-define where states would need EPA approval, -provide for a streamlined approval process, and -set "performance" criteria for state E-reporting and state E-Recordkeeping with guidance that is more specific on suggested system performance requirements), and 3) decouple E-recordkeeping for regulated entities from CROMERRR. By July 10, 2002, each program office is supposed to report back with AA-level office positions on the OEI/OECA proposal to proceed with CROMERRR "lite."

OECA is continuing to pursue an electronic recordkeeping rule that would be more "general performance standard" based. OECA is preparing a draft work plan to accomplish a "risk" analysis, a "technology" analysis and a "economic" analysis for additional reg controls on E-recordkeeping beyond general performance standards. Currently, there is no real plan in place to accomplish this but the draft workplan is intended to keep the topic on the front burner.

OGWDW will be reviewing the proposed changes to the electronic reporting language and other draft documents with appropriate staff when they become available over the summer. and will report our conclusions to you.

The proposed milestones for the final language on the revised CROMERRR includes informal Agency and State review by mid-August 2002; Final Agency Review/Workgroup Closure by late October 2002, and Final Rule Published in FR by April 2003.

Jeffrey Bryan
(202) 564-3942

List of State proposals for IT grant dollars

At the annual Data Manager User Conference in New Mexico this year, we learned that not everyone was aware of the availability of several kinds of grants (Readiness grants, Challenge grants, etc.) that could be used to advance state information technology activities. Additionally, many states did not know if their state had applied for such grants. I spoke with Lyn Berger at EPA’s Office of Environmental information and she provided the following information to help states track if their states are submitting proposals to do IT work and whether they have received funding for those proposals.

A listing of all proposals received is currently posted on the NEIEN grant web site. We plan to use this site as a tool for keeping all stakeholders informed about the Network Grant Activities. We don't have points of contact (POCs) for each proposal, however, we will be updating the web site to reflect the final award decisions, as well as including a short summary of each of the projects. At your suggestion, we will add POCs for each project. We also plan to post quarterly updates on each project .

Please check out the web site at http://www.epa.gov/neengprg/new.html. Let me know if you need additional information

PWS Intake/Wellhead Latitude/Longitude Task Group
Carl B. Reeverts
(202) 564-4632

We are ready to start using the lat/long data in SDWIS/Fed in several GIS applications:

1. OW will release in May an intranet version of OW Enviromapper with a new drinking water data layer, displaying intake locations indexed to NHD stream reaches. Access will be for EPA employees only through a password.

1. OPP will be using the intake location data indexed to stream reaches in a GIS model to project pesticide usage in intake contributing watersheds, to meet requirements under the 1996 Food Quality Projection Act.

1. OGWDW will access all the well and intake data to continue development and testing of its drinking water GIS application.

Although we have a wealth of data to offer (location of 6,500 intakes and 102,958 wells for 39,068 CWS), we still have some data gaps and we have not completed the Q/A of all the data. But based on the Q/A efforts to date for both the well and intake data, we believe these data problems are few and far between.

Our overall goal continues to be: to populate SDWIS/Fed with complete and valid lat/long data ready for use in GIS applications. Progress toward filling the remaining data gaps has slowed dramatically! The March 31, 2002 SDWIS/Fed report, in fact, shows several states with a lower percentage of CWS with complete lat/long data than last quarter.

o We still are close to meeting our first objective (i.e., to get the data into SDWIS/Fed), but the remaining data gaps have increased over the last quarter. As of April 3, 2002::

o We continue to progress toward meeting our second objective (i.e., to validate the data). As of April 3:

o Finally, we are moving aggressively toward reaching our third objective (i.e., to make the data ready for use):

Following is a progress report summary of Region and state progress toward reaching the first objective:

Lat/Long Management Status Report (4/3/2002) (rev.4/23p.m.)

Objective 1: Finish Collecting the Data and Entering It in SDWIS Fed

[Initial Deadline: June 30, 2001; Revised deadline: Dec 31, 2001;Final deadline: ?]

[data from 1Q2002 SDWIS/Fed frozen data base (4/3/2002)

Phill C. Scearce
202-564-4634

This month's update is being delivered on OGWDW's website; the update is also being emailed out as an Adobe™ PDF file. (To use a PDF document, a reader program must be installed on your computer to display, print, and navigate. The Adobe™ Acrobat™ reader is available for downloading at no cost from Adobe's Web site at http://www.adobe.com.) For those who wish to read the newsletter online, simply enter this url into your browser: (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/imb_update/index2.html). If you need to print out the update, there is a print link at the top of the web page so all you have to do is click the link and it will take you to a printable version of the update.

If you have any questions or issues with the new format, please feel free to contact me at (202) 654-4634 or by email at scearce.phill@epa.gov, and I will assist you with the new changes, as well as subscription additions and/or changes.