For your consideration. Now I am going swimming in a river near my place.

Have a good holiday US Folk!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai99151.pdf
*Pages 1--48 from Untitled* GAO
United States General Accounting Office
Report to the Special Committee on the
Year 2000 Technology Problem, U.S.
Senate
 

April 1999 YEAR 2000
COMPUTING CRISIS
 

Status of the Water Industry
 

A clean supply of drinking water and the removal and treatment of
wastewater are critical to the safety and well-being of the public as we
move into the next century. At your request, we identified the water utility
sector's vulnerability to Year 2000 problems, the reported status of Year
2000 readiness, and activities being undertaken to address this issue. On
April 12, 1999, we briefed your office on the results of our work. The
briefing slides are included in appendix I.
 

This report provides a high-level summary of the information presented at
that briefing, including background information, Year 2000 risks, actions
taken by the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, the reported
readiness of the drinking water and wastewater industries, actions taken
by regulators to oversee water and wastewater facilities' Year 2000 status,
and practices used by leading facilities to address their Year 2000 problems.
This report also presents suggestions we are making to reduce the risk of
Year 2000-related failures of drinking water or wastewater services, and to
ensure that the public has adequate information about what is being done
to reduce the risk of such failures.
 

Results in Brief Water and wastewater treatment facilities often use automated control systems and equipment to obtain, treat, and distribute drinking water, and
to collect, treat, and release wastewater. These control systems and
equipment are subject to Year 2000 failures. However, little is known about
the Year 2000 status of the nation's water and wastewater facilities. While
the President's Year 2000 Conversion Council's water sector working group
has undertaken an awareness campaign and is urging national water sector
associations to continue to survey their memberships to determine their
Year 2000 readiness, to date these associations' surveys have had low
response rates. Further, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials
stated that the agency currently lacks the rules and regulations necessary
to require water and wastewater facilities to report on their Year 2000
status, and that developing such rules and regulations would be a time-
consuming process.
 

We surveyed state regulators to identify their efforts to monitor the Year
2000 status of the water and wastewater facilities they regulate, and found
a wide range of responses. A few states were proactively collecting Year
2000 compliance data from the facilities they regulate, while a much larger
group of states was disseminating Year 2000 information, and another
group was not actively using either approach. 1 Further, only a handful of
state regulators believed that under the current regulatory framework, they
were responsible for ensuring facilities' Year 2000 compliance, or
overseeing facilities' business continuity and contingency plans. As a
result, insufficient information is available to assess and manage Year 2000
efforts in the water sector, and little additional information is expected
under the current regulatory framework.
 

Background The United States' population is served by about 55,000 community drinking water facilities and by about 16,000 public wastewater
facilities. 2 While most of these facilities are relatively small, about 3,300
large and very large drinking water facilities and about 500 large and very
large wastewater facilities serve the majority of the population. 3
 

In most communities, water flows or is pumped from a raw water source?
such as a lake or stream?into a water treatment facility where solids are
aggregated and filtered out, and chemicals are added to disinfect the water.
Other chemicals may also be added to control minerals or corrosion.
Drinking water is then typically pumped into a storage tank or reservoir,
and distributed via gravity or pumping stations through water mains to
homes and businesses. Wastewater is subsequently collected from homes
and businesses through sewer lines and often pumped via pumping stations

The state Public Utility Commissions we surveyed were more proactive, but they typically oversee a minority of the facilities in each state.

This excludes people who receive their water from individually-owned and operated sources, including wells and springs. It also excludes those whose wastewater is treated by on-site septic systems or privately-owned wastewater facilities.

According to EPA, large drinking water facilities serve between 10,001 and 100,000 people and very large facilities serve over 100,000 people. A major wastewater association categorizes wastewater treatment facilities by the flow of wastewater treated per day, with large facilities generally treating between 10 million and 100 million gallons per day and the very large facilities treating more than 100
million gallons per day.

to a wastewater treatment facility. At this facility, solids are allowed to
settle out or are filtered out, and chemicals are added to disinfect the
effluent before it is released?often to a river, stream, or lake. Treated
effluent from wastewater facilities is often taken in by drinking water
facilities downstream.

The Water Sector is Vulnerable to Year 2000 Failures

Many water facilities rely on information technology and digital controls
with embedded microprocessors to process and distribute drinking water,
and to collect and treat wastewater. 4 In large and medium facilities,
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems are often used
to monitor and control equipment. Programmable logic controllers (PLC)
communicate with the SCADA systems and with electronic controls in
equipment such as pumps, valves, and sensors. Even smaller facilities that
perform many functions manually will often use some level of automation
to control their water and wastewater treatment processes.
 

Year 2000-induced failures in SCADA systems, PLCs, or electronic controls
could affect a facility's ability to monitor and control its operations,
resulting in loss of pressure in a drinking water system; under-or
overtreated drinking water; or overflow of untreated sewage into public
waterways. Additionally, although many facilities have manual backup
procedures in place, failures of multiple systems may overtax staff
resources?even if each failure is manageable in itself.

In addition to Year 2000 risks posed by internal systems, water and
wastewater facilities are heavily dependent on external entities, including
the power and telecommunications infrastructure and chemical suppliers.
An official at a large water facility told us that without power, the facility
would shut down. He noted that even minor fluctuations in power supply
affect the facility's operations by causing pumps to shut down.

A facility's level of automation can range from highly automated process controls to mostly manual operations, with medium and large facilities more likely to be highly automated than smaller facilities.
 

The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion established a water
sector working group, led by EPA. This working group has undertaken a
number of activities, including an awareness campaign aimed at
disseminating information on the Year 2000 problem to water and
wastewater facilities. It has also urged water sector trade associations to
continue surveying their memberships as to the water and wastewater
facilities' Year 2000 readiness.
 

To date, associations' surveys have had low response rates and, as a result,
little is known about the status of the nation's water and wastewater
facilities. Specifically, three national drinking water associations sent a
voluntary survey to about 4,000 water facility operators through August
1998. Survey responses showed that 51 percent of respondents had
completed an internal assessment of their Year 2000 risks, and 81 percent
expected to complete their internal Year 2000 work in time. However, there
was only an 18-percent response rate overall, and these responses
accounted for less than 1 percent of the nation's very small to medium
facilities; about 8 percent of the nation's large facilities; and about 25
percent of the very large facilities.
 

Additionally, a national wastewater association surveyed its membership of
mostly large public wastewater facilities in June and again in October 1998.
The latest survey results indicated that by the end of April 1999, only 35
percent of respondents expected to complete Year 2000 repairs, 24 percent
expected to complete Year 2000 testing, and 18 percent expected to
complete implementation of system repairs. However, the survey response
rate was low?falling from a 37-percent response rate in June to a 21-
percent response rate in October. Further, because the membership
consisted of mostly large facilities, few small and medium facilities
participated in this survey. Responses to the latest survey account for less
than 1 percent of the nation's very small to medium public facilities, 7
percent of the nation's large public facilities, and 15 percent of the nation's
very large public facilities.
 

Because the water associations have not had a high response rate, other
organizations may need to fill in the gaps in information. EPA officials
stated, however, that without developing regulations and information
collection rules?which would likely be a very time-consuming process?
they lack the means to require facilities to report on their Year 2000 status.
As a result, little is known on a national level regarding water facilities'
Year 2000 readiness.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA)
provide EPA regulatory authority for drinking water and wastewater
quality. EPA has delegated responsibility to most states for basic
regulatory functions such as enforcing drinking water standards, and
issuing and enforcing permits that allow wastewater facilities to discharge
treated wastewater. EPA monitors and collects compliance information
from the states.

In addition to the responsibilities provided under the SDWA and CWA,
many states have legislation providing Public Utility Commissions (PUCs)
other regulatory responsibilities, including rate-setting, handling of
consumer complaints, inspections, and audits of private water and
wastewater facilities. 5 Most state PUCs regulate facilities that serve a
small portion of the population. Only a few affect a broader population.
Specifically, five states' PUCs responsible for drinking water and two
states' PUCs responsible for wastewater regulate facilities that serve over
half of those states' population. 6
 

We surveyed state administrations and PUCs to identify their efforts to
monitor the Year 2000 status of the water and wastewater facilities they
regulate and found a wide range of initiatives. A few state administrations
were proactively collecting readiness information from the facilities they
regulated; a much larger group was disseminating Year 2000 information;
and another large group was inactive on the Year 2000 issue. In general, the
PUCs were more proactive, but again, most PUCs affect only a small
portion of the state population. Appendix I provides further details on each
state's survey responses.
 

In other survey results, only a few state administrations reported that,
under the current regulatory framework, they were responsible for
ensuring facilities' Year 2000 compliance or overseeing facilities' business
continuity and contingency plans. EPA officials agreed that current
regulations do not require states to take responsibility for the Year 2000
issue.
 

5
About 20 states also provide PUCs the authority to regulate some public facilities.
 

6
The five states with PUCs that regulate drinking water facilities serving over half the population are
 

Connecticut, Indiana, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The two states with PUCs that regu- late wastewater facilities serving over half the population are Rhode Island and West Virginia.

Because of the large number of state regulators that are not collecting
facilities' readiness information, there is insufficient information to assess
and manage Year 2000 efforts in the water sector. Further, little additional
information is expected under the current regulatory framework.

Leading Facilities Use Common Practices To Address Year 2000

To gain insight into the practices used at water sector facilities that were
identified as having made progress in their Year 2000 efforts, we visited
small, medium, and large water and wastewater facilities. We found that
these leading organizations had practices that were consistent with our
published guidance for addressing the Year 2000 issue. 7
 

Leading facilities' practices included (1) gaining executive management
support, (2) conducting enterprise-wide inventories of information systems
and components, (3) prioritizing systems and components to be converted
or replaced, (4) identifying, prioritizing, and mobilizing needed resources,
(5) replacing noncompliant systems and hardware, (6) testing converted
and replaced systems and components, and (7) developing contingency
plans for mission-critical systems. A few facilities had also developed
innovative practices?such as bar-coding every inventory item to facilitate
tracking its Year 2000 progress and requiring operators to practice running
facilities without electronic controls.
 

Suggested Actions In order to reduce the risk of Year 2000-related failures of drinking water and wastewater services and to ensure that the public has adequate
information about what is being done to reduce the risk of such failures, we
suggest that:
 

€ The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion consider requesting
that the water sector associations publicly disclose the status of those
facilities that have responded to surveys, and identify those that have
not responded. In doing so, the Council may want to consider
developing a template for collecting and disclosing Year 2000 status
information.
€ If the current approach of using associations to voluntarily collect
information does not yield the necessary information on water facilities'
Year 2000 readiness by June 1999, the Council consider whether
legislative remedies, such as requiring facilities to disclose their Year
2000 readiness data by September 1999, are feasible and should be
proposed.
€ The Council, EPA, and the states determine which regulatory
organization should take responsibility for assessing and publicly
disclosing the status and outlook of water sector facilities' Year 2000
business continuity and contingency plans.
 

EPA officials generally agreed with our suggested actions. However, they
noted that associations may be unwilling to disclose facilities' Year 2000
status and state which facilities have not responded to surveys. One
official also stated that additional legislation may be needed if EPA is to
take responsibility for overseeing facilities' Year 2000 business continuity
and contingency plans.
 

Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
 

As requested, our objectives were to determine what Year 2000 issues could
affect our nation's water sector and what the President's Council on Year
2000 Conversion, leading facilities, and state regulatory offices are doing to
address Year 2000 issues associated with community water and wastewater
services.
 

To identify what Year 2000 issues could affect the water and wastewater
industries, we contacted trade associations and engineers and utilized
government, private-sector, and trade association Internet sites. We also
visited selected water and wastewater facilities to obtain information about
the extent of system vulnerabilities.
 

To identify the Council's activities to address Year 2000 issues associated
with water and wastewater industries, we met with officials and attended
water sector meetings at EPA. To identify what leading facilities are doing
to address the Year 2000 problem, we visited leading water sector
organizations and identified practices they thought helped them make
progress in addressing the Year 2000 problem. Lastly, to identify what state
regulatory offices are doing to address the Year 2000 issues associated with
community water and wastewater services, we surveyed state water sector
regulators in January and February 1999. To do so, we developed a
questionnaire, pretested it at three state locations, and administered it by
telephone and fax. We validated our results by obtaining documentation to
support interviewees' responses.

Year 2000 Status of the Water Industry

We conducted our work at the Environmental Protection Agency in
Washington, D.C., and at selected water and wastewater treatment facilities
throughout the country. We performed our work from November 1998
through April 1999, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
 

1
Accounting and Information Management Division Y2K Drinking Water and Wastewater

April 12, 1999 Amended April 19, 1999
Briefing for the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem

Briefing Overview
° Objectives and Methodology
° Background: Sector Decomposition and Demographics
° Year 2000 Risks in the Water Sector
° President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion Actions and Reported Sector Status
 

° GAO Survey: State Regulators' Actions
° Leading Facilities' Practices
° Observations
° Suggested Actions
 

Objectives
Determine:
 

° What Year 2000 issues could affect water and wastewater
industries
 

° What the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion is doing
to address Year 2000 issues associated with water and
wastewater industries
 

° What state regulatory offices are doing to address the Year
2000 issues associated with community water and wastewater
services
 

° What leading facilities are doing to address the Year 2000
problem

Overview of Methodology
To address these objectives, we:
 

° contacted trade associations and engineers and utilized
government, private sector, and trade association Internet sites
for pertinent water industry and Year 2000 information
 

° attended the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion water
utilities sector meetings at the Environmental Protection Agency
to learn about the Council's actions and plans
 

° surveyed Year 2000 actions of state water sector regulators by
developing a questionnaire, pretesting it at three state locations,
and administering the questionnaire by telephone and fax
 

° visited leading water sector facilities to learn about best practices
in addressing the Year 2000 problem

Background: Water Sector Demographics

° Approximately 55, 000 community drinking water facilities serve about 94% of the U. S. population.
° The remainder of the population receive their water from individually owned and operated sources including wells,
cisterns, and springs.
° About 16, 000 public wastewater facilities collect and process over 32 billion gallons of wastewater per day from about 187 million people (about 70% of the U. S. population).
° The remainder of the U. S. population's wastewater is treated by on-site septic systems or privately-owned wastewater facilities.

Background: Water Sector Demographics (cont'd.)
The nation's water and wastewater treatment facilities are diverse:
° Publicly-Owned:
° generally owned and operated by local governments--counties and municipalities or by water or sanitation districts.
 

° serve a majority of the population.
° Privately-Owned:
° generally owned and operated for profit.
° serve a minority of the population.

EPA categorizes drinking water facilities according to the number of
people they serve:
 

Size Population served Number of facilities
Very Small 25-500 about 32,000
Small 501-3,300 about 14,000
Medium 3,301-10, 000 about 4,000
Large 10, 001-100,000 about 3,000
Very Large Over 100,000 about 330
 

About 75 percent of the population is served by large or very large water facilities.
Levels of automation range from manual operations to highly automated process control systems--medium and large facilities tend to be more
automated.

The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) categorizes wastewater facilities according to the flow of wastewater treated. These facilities range from very small to very large.

° About 13, 000 public wastewater facilities treat less than 1 million gallons per day.
 

° 47 public wastewater facilities treat more than 100 million gallons per day.
 

As with drinking water, levels of automation range from manual operations to highly automated process control systems--medium and
large facilities tend to be more automated.

Background: General Schematic of Drinking Water and Wastewater Facilities
Wastewater treatment facility:
 

Wastewater flows or is pumped into a facility where typically solids are allowed to out or are filtered out and chemicals are added to disinfect the effluent before it is released.

Drinking water treatment facility:

Water flows or is pumped into a facility where typically solids are aggregated and filtered out and chemicals such as chlorine or ozone are added to disinfect the water.
Other chemicals may be added to control minerals or corrosion.

Wastewater is collected from homes and businesses through sewer lines and often pumped via pumping stations to a treatment facility.
 

Drinking water is typically pumped into storage tanks or reservoirs and then distributed via gravity or pumping stations through water mains to homes and businesses.

Raw water source: lake, river, stream, acquifer

Treated effluent from wastewater facilities is often taken in by drinking water facilities downstream

Year 2000 Risks in the Water Sector

Many water facilities rely on information technology and digital controls with embedded microprocessors to process and distribute drinking water and to
collect and treat wastewater.

Potential Year 2000 failure modes and consequences include:

° Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems--which enable plant operators to monitor and control equipment throughout a large treatment plant--may fail, making it difficult to monitor facility operations.

° Digital controls for pumps may fail, resulting in lack of pressure in drinking water systems or overflow of untreated sewage.
 

° Digital controls or sensors for chemical metering systems may fail, resulting in under-treated or over-treated drinking water; or discharge of untreated
sewage, which may render public waters unusable or unsafe.

° Although many facilities have manual backup procedures, failures of multiple systems in a facility may overtax staff resources--even if each
failure is manageable by itself.

Year 2000 Risks in the Water Sector: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

A central Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) console, from which a plant operator can monitor and control equipment throughout a large treatment plant.

An equipment cabinet with programmable logic controllers that communicate with electronic controls for individual pieces of equipment such as pumps, valves, and sensors, and with the central SCADA system.

Year 2000 Risks in the Water Sector Even if a water facility does not use computers or equipment with digital controllers, it can be affected by others that do, such as

° electric power companies,
° telecommunications companies, and
° chemical suppliers.

The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion designated EPA as the lead
for the water utility sector. To date, EPA has
 

° disseminated information on the Year 2000 problem;
° encouraged sector trade associations to survey their membership and to
conduct follow-up surveys;
° issued policy to encourage Year 2000 testing by stating its intent to waive
civil penalties, and to recommend against criminal prosecution, for
environmental violations caused by Year 2000 testing--subject to certain
conditions, including the need to correct any testing-related violations
immediately; and
° asked its regional offices to encourage states that are not currently doing so
to take action to address the Year 2000 problem in water facilities.
 

However, EPA officials say the agency lacks the means to require facilities to
report on their Year 2000 status without the time-consuming development of
regulations and rules.

President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion Water Utility Sector: Reported Preparedness of Drinking Water Facilities

Three key drinking water associations, including the American Water Works
Association (AWWA), sent a voluntary survey to about 4,000 facility operators
through August 1998.
 

° 725 operators responded by December 1998. About half reported they had
completed their Year 2000 assessments of internal systems.
 

° AWWA cautions that the responses may be biased in favor of facilities that
are better prepared for the Year 2000.
 

° Survey responses account for less than 1 percent of the nation's very small
to medium facilities; about 8 percent of the nation's large facilities, and
about 25 percent of the very large facilities.
 

° AWWA plans to conduct a follow-up survey and report updated findings by
July 1999.
 

President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion Water Utility Sector: Reported Preparedness of Wastewater Facilities

In June 1998, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
surveyed its membership of 206 mostly large municipal facilities. AMSA reported
 

° 37 percent responded, and of these, 95 percent had begun to implement solutions for the Year 2000 problem.
 

In October 1998, AMSA conducted another survey focusing on when facilities
expected to complete major conversion steps. AMSA reported
 

° 21 percent responded, and
° the respondents project that by April 1999;
° 35% would be complete with repair
° 24% would be complete with testing
° 18% would be complete with implementation.

° Survey responses account for less than 1 percent of the nation's very small to
medium public facilities; about 7 percent of the nation's large public facilities,
and about 15 percent of the very large public facilities.
 

° The wastewater association plans to conduct a follow-up survey and report
updated findings by July 1999.

19 The shaded area indicates the regulators we surveyed
 

GAO Survey: Overview of Regulatory Framework
Regulation of Drinking Water Contaminants and Discharge of Wastewater Effluents Other Regulatory Responsibility (could include rate-setting,handling consumer complaints, inspections, and audits

Regulators US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The Safe Drinking Water (SDWA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) provide EPA certain regulatory responsibilities for water quality. EPA has delegated authority to most
state administrations for basic regulatory functions such as enforcing drinking water
standards and issuing and enforcing permits that allow facilities to discharge treated
wastewater. EPA monitors and collects compliance information from states.

State administrations

Unless EPA retained authority under SDWA and CWA or this authority was further
delegated to local administrations, state administrations are responsible for
regulatory functions such as enforcing drinking water standards under SDWA and
issuing and enforcing permits under CWA. Some state legislation provides
additional authority. States report federal compliance information back to EPA, and
can lose their regulatory authority if the facilities do not meet regulatory standards.
Public utility
commissions
(PUCs)
 

State legislation often provides authority to PUCs to regulate private water and wastewater facilities. Nineteen states also provide PUCs the authority to regulate some public facilities. PUCs typically oversee a minority of the facilities in each state.

Local administrations

States may delegate authority to regulate specific components of SDWA and CWA
to local administrations. Some local administrations also have local legislation that
provides them with authority to regulate additional health requirements.
 

State and local legislation provide local administrations with authority to regulate public water and wastewater facilities.

GAO Survey: Scope
° Conducted January through February 1999
 

° Interviewed the primary drinking water, wastewater, and public utility
commission contact in each state
 

° Interviews were conducted via telephone or faxed questionnaire and
validated by documentation supporting interviewees' responses
 

° Respondent rates:
° 50 drinking water administrations 100%
° 50 wastewater administrations 100%
° 50 public utility commissions--drinking water 88%
° 50 public utility commissions--wastewater 88%

GAO Survey: Analysis Approach
We placed each state regulator into one of three categories:*
° Proactive--these regulators reported taking action to assess the readiness of
water or wastewater facilities. Most proactive states also reported taking action
to provide (1) information about the Year 2000 problem, or (2) guidance about
how to address the Year 2000 problem to facility operators in their states.
 

° Active--these regulators reported taking action to disseminate general
information about potential Year 2000 problems or notify operators about their
responsibilities to ensure that their facilities remain in compliance with
applicable regulations after 1/ 1/ 2000, but did not assess the Year 2000
progress of facilities in their states.
 

° Inactive--these regulators reported not taking action to provide information
about potential Year 2000 problems to facility operators, or to assess the
readiness of water sector facilities in their states.
 

*Note: One should not draw conclusions about the state of individual water facilities on the basis of a regulator's level of activity. A regulator's activity level is one of many factors that may affect facilities' progress.

GAO Survey: Drinking Water Administrations Summary of actions by state drinking water administrations on the Year 2000 problem Condition States Description Proactive

(2)
Colorado, Minnesota These states reported taking action to assess readiness of drinking water facilities. Most of these states also reported taking action to provide (1) information about Year 2000, or (2) guidance about how to address Year 2000 to operators in their states.
 

Active
(28)
Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Wyoming 1
 

These states reported taking action to disseminate information about the problem or notify operators about their responsibility for Year 2000, but did not assess the Year 2000 progress of facilities in their states.

Inactive
(20)
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon
 

These states reported not taking action to provide information about potential Year 2000 problems to facilite operators, or to assess the readiness of drinking water facilities in their states. Some of these states said they plan to take action in the future.
 

1 The US Environmental Protection Agency has regulatory authority in Wyoming under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
 

Note: Facilities may have received Year 2000 information from other
sources, including EPA, trade associations, and other state organizations.
 

GAO Survey: Public Utility Commissions that Regulate Drinking Water
Summary of actions by state public utility commissions responsible for regulating drinking water facilities on the Year 2000 problem 1

Condition States Description
Proactive Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut 2 , Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York 3 , North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
 

These states reported taking action to assess the Year 2000 status of drinking water facilities. Most of these states also reported taking action to provide (1) information about Year 2000, or (2) guidance about how to address Year 2000 to operators in their states.
 

Active (1) Florida This state reported taking action to disseminate information about the problem or notify operators about their responsibility for Year 2000, but did not assess the Year 2000 progress of facilities in the state.

Inactive
(3)
Kansas, Nebraska, Washington These states reported not taking action to provide information about potential Year 2000 problems to facility operators, or to assess the readiness of drinking water facilities in their states.
 

Some of these states said they plan to take action in the future.
Non-Regulating (6) Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas These state public utility commissions reported they are not responsible for regulating private drinking water facilities.
 

Non-Responding (6) Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia These states did not respond to the questionnaire.
 

1
In most states, the PUC regulates facilities that serve a relatively small percentage of the population. However, in five states--Connecticut, Indiana, Rhode Island, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin? the PUC regulates facilities that serve over half of the population.

2
Connecticut reported it has collected Year 2000 information from only the 3 largest investor owned water facilities in the state. They said they are only secondarily
tracking the status of the other medium and smaller size water facilities they regulate. 3
New York reported that they are actively monitoring Year 2000 compliance for the 6 largest regulated facilities serving about 80% of the regulated population.
They reported that the remaining 374 companies, 20% of the population, are monitored on a less rigorous basis.
 

Note: Facilities may have received Year 2000 information from other
sources, including EPA, trade associations, and other state organizations.
 

GAO Survey: Wastewater Administrations
Summary of actions by state water pollution control (wastewater) administrations on the Year 2000 problem Condition States Description
 

Proactive
(3)
Alaska, California, Utah These states reported taking action to assess readiness of wastewater facilities. Most of these states have also reported taking action to provide (1) information about Y2K, or (2) guidance about how to address Y2K to operators in their states.
 

Active
(30)
Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming
 

These states reported taking action to disseminate
information about the problem or notify operators about their responsibility for Y2K, but did not assess the Year 2000 progress of facilities in their states.
 

Inactive
(17)
Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia
 

These states reported not taking action to provide information about potential Y2K problems to facility operators, or to
assess the readiness of water pollution control facilities in
their states. Some of these states said they plan to take
action in the future.
 

Note: Facilities may have received Year 2000 information from other
sources, including EPA, trade associations, and other state organizations.

GAO Survey: Public Utility Commissions that Regulate Wastewater
Note: Facilities may have received Year 2000 information from other
sources, including EPA, trade associations, and other state organizations.
 

Summary of actions by state public utility commissions responsible for regulating wastewater facilities
on the Year 2000 problem 1
 

Condition States Description
Proactive
(21)
Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia,
Wisconsin
 

These states reported taking action to assess the Year 2000
status of wastewater facilities. Most of these states also reported
taking action to provide (1) information about Year 2000, or (2)
guidance about how to address Year 2000 to operators in their
states.
Active (2) California, Florida These states reported taking action to disseminate information about the problem or notify operators about their responsibility for
 

Year 2000.
Inactive
(0)
These states reported taking action to date to provide information
about potential Year 2000 problems to facility operators, or to
assess the readiness of wastewater facilities in their states.
Some of these states said they plan to take action in the future.
Non-Regulating (21) Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
 

Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont 2 , Washington, Wyoming
These state public utility commissions reported they are not
responsible for regulating private wastewater facilities.
 

Non-Responding
(6)
Hawaii, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Mexico,
Pennsylvania, Virginia
These states did not respond to the questionnaire.
 

1 In most states, the PUC regulates facilities that serve a relatively small percentage of the population. However, in two states--Rhode Island and West Virginia? the PUC
regulates facilities that serve over half the population. 2
Vermont reported it has regulatory authority for wastewater facilities; however, they reported regulating none at this time.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 05, 1999

Answers

Thank you Brian. Not exactly uplifting news in *JULY 1999*.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 05, 1999.

Ackkkk

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), July 06, 1999.

If you don't have a well, get one.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 06, 1999.

Damn, again. - I hate being right about these things.

55,000 supply systems, over 30,000 waste wate treatment systems. They ask for status, and only some 81% of the 18% who bother to reply even answered with the most wishy washy of "we expect to be compliant by ..." in the latest survey.

Only 25% of the largest systems even replied. So why don't these guys at least tell us who those are who are at least working on the problems are, then the remaining 75% of the large system users can plan better for troubles.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 06, 1999.

"Year 2000-induced failures in SCADA systems, PLCs, or electronic controls could affect a facility's ability to monitor and control its operations, resulting in loss of pressure in a drinking water system; under-or overtreated drinking water; or overflow of untreated sewage into public waterways. Additionally, although many facilities have manual backup procedures in place, failures of multiple systems may overtax staff resources?even if each failure is manageable in itself."

In addition to Year 2000 risks posed by internal systems, water and wastewater facilities are heavily dependent on external entities, including the power and telecommunications infrastructure and chemical suppliers. An official at a large water facility told us that without power, the facility would shut down. He noted that even minor fluctuations in power supply affect the facility's operations by causing pumps to shut down."

:+P Stuck up $#!+ creek with nothing during LogRoll!

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), July 06, 1999.