We recently published an article about the draft PFAS rule published by EPA in March 2023. EPA also published a draft rule in March 2023 to revise the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule. EPA was required to undertake this action when Congress passed and the President signed America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018. AWIA amended the Safe Drinking Water Act and required EPA to revise the CCR rule to:
- Increase the accuracy and readability of CCRs;
- Provide more information about lead;
- Require systems serving more than 10,000 people to provide CCRs twice per year; and,
- Allow for electronic CCR delivery.
EPA also decided to include a provision in the rule requiring states to provide direct compliance monitoring data to EPA as opposed to the current practice of reporting summary information and violations only. We are concerned about this provision leading to EPA micromanaging states with primacy and frequently questioning us about specific water systems that may have issues particularly with per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) or lead or whatever contaminant may be perceived as a hot topic at the moment.
In reviewing the draft rule we identified some items of concern that the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) highlighted in its comments on the draft rule. While EPA was certainly required by AWIA to increase the CCR frequency for large systems, specific provisions in the draft rule appear to require water systems to duplicate efforts and communications already undertaken when water systems provide information to the public as part of the Public Notice Rules. We hope EPA elects to reduce those duplicative activities.
The draft CCR rule also placed a heavy emphasis on translating CCRs into alternate languages and requires states to assist water systems in this process. We support helping people get information they need in a language they best understand. We are happy to assist water systems in achieving this goal. However, we are concerned that the draft rule could be construed as requiring states to undertake translation services in some instances. We believe that EPA must take the lead in helping states and water systems with translation. But states should not be directly required to take on this task by EPA; doing so can create an inherent conflict of interest with states' oversight role.
Although EPA was tasked in AWIA with improving readability, ASDWA still believes that some of the revised language, such as the nitrate and arsenic education statements, are reading at a 12th -14th -grade level, which is too high for the general public. To improve readability, EPA should simplify much of its new language to a lower reading level.
EPA also had some concerning language in the draft rule about “misleading statements.” We agree that it is unacceptable for water systems to put misleading statements in CCRs that underplay the health risks from violation or similar circumstances. In Colorado, we review CCRs and require that misleading statements be corrected. However, EPA used an example of a misleading statement as characterizing the drinking water as “safe.” We have serious concerns about this example. Considering that the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for many contaminants are zero, we understand that many contaminants can impart a very low health risk even if below the MCL. However, we do not believe that stating the water is safe to drink when a system is in compliance is a misleading statement that must be corrected.
The timeline for this proposed rule is also concerning. EPA plans to finalize this rule in 2024, and then have it go into effect in 2025. This is not enough time and very challenging from a feasibility standpoint. For most drinking water rules, states have two years to adopt the rule and then the compliance date is one year out from that. Specifically, this is not enough time for states to adopt the rule and attain primacy. This is also not enough time for states to develop the needed policies, guidance, and business processes to support implementation. This is not enough time for states and water systems to develop translation assistance efforts and materials needed. We hope that EPA takes a more reasonable approach to the timing of the final rule.
Lastly, this rule will also require new resources for the division to implement. Colorado has been able to implement several new rules the last decade involving disinfection, water haulers, storage tanks, backflow prevention and cross connection control, and the revised total coliform rule without adding program resources for implementation. However, with this CCR rule coming essentially at the same time as the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) and the PFAS rule, the division must obtain additional resources to support maintaining primacy into the future.
As always, we will engage with stakeholders in developing the CCR rule for Colorado. We already have a very strong program with respect to public notice, the current CCR rule and translation, especially into Spanish. We will do our best to help water systems comply with the CCR rule considering our funding and resource levels. I advise you to learn about the new draft CCR rule and take steps to prepare your water system for it.
Thank you,
➽ Ron Falco, P.E. Safe Drinking Water Program Manager
