On March 28, 2023, EPA announced a proposed rulemaking that would strengthen the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule. The rulemaking would bring greater requirements for community water systems’ Consumer Confidence Reports, also known as Annual Drinking Water Quality Reports.
EPA has said that the proposed rulemaking would, if finalized, introduce seven specific CCR requirements:
- Improve the readability, clarity, and understandability of water quality reports
- Enhance risk communication
- Encourage modern electronic delivery options
- Clarify information regarding lead levels and efforts to reduce lead in drinking water
- Provide translation for customers with limited English proficiency
- Require reports to be issued twice a year for systems serving 10,000 or more people
- Require states to submit further compliance monitoring data to EPA
The rulemaking also proposes several other minute changes and recommendations.
EPA is still accepting public comments on the proposed revisions through May 22, 2023. Comments can be submitted under docket EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260 on regulations.gov.
What is the background of this change, and what do each of the seven requirements mean for drinking water providers? This article will dive into these questions.
About the CCR Rule
The Consumer Confidence Report Rule was first published in 1998, requiring community water systems to provide annual drinking water quality reports. The rule was justified by the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA’s) “right-to-know” provisions, which were added in 1996 as amendments to the Act.
Background of the proposed changes
“It's been about 2 decades since we've had the original CCR rule and, since then, things have changed: our way of communication has changed, the way we consume information — there have been a lot of changes in society,” said Sri Vedachalam, Director for Water Equity and Climate Resilience at Corvias Infrastructure Solutions. Vedachalam was also a member of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council’s (NDWAC’s) Consumer Confidence Reports Working Group.
In 2012, EPA finished a periodic review of regulations, finding five areas of improvement for the CCR Rule: CCR understandability, MCL reporting, periods for including a Tier 3 Public Notice in the CCR, certification of CCR delivery and content, and electronic delivery of the CCR.
The America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA) instructed EPA to revise the CCR Rule. The Act required EPA to change the content, form, manner, and frequency of CCRs — mandating many of the changes that EPA’s proposed CCR rulemaking now seek to implement. The Act required EPA to make CCRs: delivered twice a year for community water systems serving 10,000+ people; more readable, clear, and understandable; available through electronic delivery; and include information on corrosion control efforts and lead action level exceedances.
“Given the mandate, EPA has been working to gather as much input as possible on what that proposed rule should look like,” said Vedachalam. “As part of that, EPA has done a bunch of outreach efforts, and one of them was setting up a work group through the NDWAC, which is the National Drinking Water Advisory Council.”
Vedachalam served as a member of NDWAC’s Consumer Confidence Reports Working Group, which developed feedback on current CCR practices and recommendations for improvements.
“I think what the EPA here is doing is improving the rules so that utilities are better communicating with their customers about their water quality,” said Mike McGill, president of WaterPIO. “But it's a real opportunity for water providers to connect with their customers when it comes to what they do every day to deliver safe, clean, drinking water.”
The proposed changes
The proposal would bring major changes to Consumer Confidence Reports.
Multiple requirements from the proposed rulemaking would only affect water systems serving 10,000 people or more. EPA estimates that these larger systems’ requirements would affect fewer than 5,000 water systems nationwide.
EPA estimates that the Proposed CCR Rule Revisions would cost roughly $22 million annually.
Biannual reports
Currently, systems need to provide CCRs by July 1 of each year, containing data collected during the previous calendar year. The new requirement would mandate a second CCR between July 2 and December 31 of each year for utilities serving 10,000 or more people.
This second report may require updated data under specific circumstances. If the water system has a violation, has an action level exceedance (ALE), or received new results/information, then its second CCR will need to include updated data collected between January 1 and June 30.
“EPA, I think, has come up with a with a rule that that allows some flexibility, but also provides customers with a little more updated data,” said Vedachalam. “I'd be curious to see what the final rule looks like, but it seems like a step in the step in the right direction.”
If the system is not affected by any of those circumstances, it can resend the original annual report.
“There are resources and staff time that are needed to produce these reports, and I obviously that will be doubled if they have to be done every six months,” said McGill. “But I think the EPA has put in a pretty good delineation of what needs to be done in those reports, and in so it will reduce some of the burden on utilities when it comes to producing it.”
Electronic delivery of CCRs
EPA is proposing to allow community water systems with electronic CCR delivery options. This change would allow systems to use several modernized approaches to CCR delivery:
- mail a paper copy of the report;
- mail a notification that the report is available on a website via a direct link; and
- email a direct link or electronic version of the report.
If a water system knows that a customer would not be able to receive a CCR by any given electronic means, then the system would need to provide the report by some alternative means. For example, if the system does not have a customer’s email address, then the system would need to deliver the report by a mail copy or mail notification.
Readability and clarity for customers
The rule proposed several revisions to the language and structure of CCRs, with the aim to improve readability, clarity, and understandability for customers.
The proposed rule would add a requirement for all CCRs to include a summary of key information at the beginning of the report. These summaries would, at a minimum, include information on violations and ALEs, contacts for additional information, and contacts for help with accessibility (such as translation services).
The rule would also add new flexibility in how water systems present contaminant data. The CCR requirement for “contaminant data table(s)” would be replaced with “contaminant data section,” where contaminant data would still need to be displayed in logical groupings for easier understanding. This would not change what systems need to report in their CCRs, but only how they present the information.
The rule would also require systems to include an explanation for any included Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) results. Systems already need to include UCMR monitoring results in CCRs — the new rule would only require a brief explanation of the reasons for this monitoring. EPA provides an example of this as “Unregulated contaminant monitoring helps EPA to determine where certain contaminants occur and whether the agency should consider regulating those contaminants in the future.”
“If water providers are creating documents that are more engaging, more accessible and provide more information, they're going to have a better relationship with their customers, especially if they promote that information,” McGill said. “You want to produce information about your water that your customers will easily understand and connect with, so they have a better appreciation of what you do and how you do it. If the document is improved with more information that's helpful to the customer, and it's delivered more often, I think water providers have an even greater opportunity to build public trust.”
Enhanced risk communication
The proposed rule would prohibit water systems from including false or misleading statements in their CCRs.
For example, sometimes CCRs stating that water is “safe,” may not be accurate for certain sensitive customers, such as people with weakened immune systems or other similar vulnerabilities. EPA says it would provide tools and resources to help develop clearer messaging.
Lead level information
The proposed rule would add a new CCR requirement for systems with lead ALE. The rule proposes a requirement for these systems to include information about actions to address the ALE. Systems would also need to include a link to their lead service line inventory, if it is available on a publicly accessible website. Lead service line inventories are a requirement of the Lead and Copper Rule, and utilities are required to submit completed inventories by October 2024.
Providing translation
EPA is proposing to require primacy agencies to help water systems provide access to customers with limited English proficiency (LEP). Systems with a large proportion of LEP customers will need to provide either translated copies of the CCR or appropriate assistance.
Large community water systems, serving 100,000 or more people, will need to develop plans for providing access to their LEP customers. Evaluations and updates to these plans will need to be included in the systems’ annual delivery certifications.
The proposed changes would require systems to clearly identify in their CCRs that they have an ALE and to describe in their CCR the actions they have taken or plan to take.
States’ data to EPA
Lastly, the proposed rulemaking would require primacy agencies to submit compliance monitoring data to EPA annually for all National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Water systems have already been reporting this data to their respective state or Tribal authorities (also known as primacy agencies) for decades. EPA plans to begin collecting this data, making it available to the public, and using it for future decision making.
Primacy agencies already provide EPA with limited compliance monitoring data. The proposed rulemaking would provide significantly more compliance monitoring data to the agency, helping understand trends, provide compliance assistance, and promote best practices.
