What Water Systems should expect from EPA’s Final Rule to Improve Public Awareness of Drinking Water Quality
On May 15, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced its final rule to make annual drinking water quality reports, used to inform the public about water quality, more understandable and accessible to the public.[1] This article will explore the effects of this final rule on community water systems (CWS or System) once the rule is implemented in 2027.[2]
The Final rule contains five main areas of revisions: (1) improve readability, understandability, and clarity; (2) Support access to translations in appropriate languages; (3) provide additional information on lead; (4) Increase frequency of delivery and update delivery methods of reports; and (5) collection of compliance monitoring data. Please see the below discussion on what changes to expect within these revision areas as a CWS following implementation.
Improve Readability, Understandability, and Clarity
CWS’s must provide a clear and simple summary at the beginning of their consumer confidence reports that highlight information such as presence of water quality violations or action level exceedances. At a minimum, this summary must include information on violations and compliance as well as water system contact information (owner, operator, designee of the water system).
System’s need to make a reasonable attempt to address requests from consumers needing accessibility accommodations to water quality reports. The term “reasonable attempts” is not defined, but examples of aiding such consumer requests include a call-in operator system, a frequently asked questions component on the system’s website, providing a link for additional information on mailed documents, and posting on social media.
If a system uses a publicly available website to provide reports, it must maintain public access to the report for no less than 3 years.
systems have increased flexibility in how they present data to consumers as they are no longer required to report contaminant data in tables. Systems must provide detection information in a “consumer-friendly” format “tailored to local needs”.
Systems must use the following new definitions for the terms listed below in their consumer confidence reports:
- Pesticide – generally, any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest.
- Herbicide – any chemical(s) used to control undesirable vegetation.
- Corrosion Control Efforts – Systems must provide a plainly worded explanation of the corrosion control efforts the system is taking in accordance with its Lead and Copper efforts.[3] Systems may use their own explanation of corrosion control efforts or select one of the templates provided by EPA in the final rule draft.
Systems are prohibited from including false or misleading statements in consumer confidence reports, including but not limited to, stating the water is “safe” may not accurately reflect the sensitivity for people with weakened immune systems, or other inherent uncertainties and variabilities in the water system.
Systems must include updated language including specific statements on nitrate and arsenic when results exceed half of the MCL but are below the MCL in 40 CFR §141.154(b) and §141.154(c).[4]
Support Access to Translations in Appropriate Languages
Systems are to include, in consumer confidence reports, appropriate contact information for consumers to request translation assistance and where translated copies of reports can be located. This does not mean that systems need translators on staff, the new rule states that Water systems unable to provide translation support must include the primacy agency (TCEQ) contact information for translation assistance. Those with limited English who are in need of translation assistance can contact either their system or the state through TCEQ.
Systems serving 100,000 or more persons must develop a plan for providing meaningful access to reports for consumers with limited English proficiency and submit these plans to their primacy agency. Furthermore, these systems must evaluate their plans annually and update them when necessary.
Provide Additional Information on Lead
Systems are required to include additional information in the CCRs regarding efforts the system is taking to prevent lead from entering drinking water including, but not limited to, discussion on lead tap sampling, service line inventory, and corrosion control efforts.
If a system detects lead concentrations above a certain level, CCRs need to explain (1) steps consumers can take to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water; (2) what corrective actions the system has or will take to address the action level exceedances; and (3) the timeframe for taking those actions.
Increase Frequency of Delivery and Update Delivery Methods of Reports
Under the new rule revisions systems serving 10,000 or more are required to provide a CCR twice each year, as opposed to the once annually current requirement. In Report No. 1 water systems are required to deliver the first report by July 1st summarizing information about the quality of drinking water for January through December of the previous year (currently required by SWDA). Report No. 2 (added requirement in the new rule) would be identical to the first report unless the system has violations of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs), or detects of lead concentrations above a specific level, in which case it would include an update with this new information.
The new rule revisions have no effects on systems serving less than 10,000 who would continue to provide one CCR annually.
system must make a good faith effort to reach consumers who do not get water bills, using means recommended by the primacy agency. EPA expects that an adequate good faith effort will be tailored to the consumers who are served by the system but are not bill-paying customers, such as renters or workers. A good faith effort to reach consumers includes a mix of methods to reach the broadest possible range of persons served by the water system.[5]
Collection of Compliance Monitoring Data
The new rule requires states with primacy (TCEQ) to submit all compliance data, which they currently receive from CWSs, to the EPA annually. This is not a new requirement on systems, as they already submit this data to TCEQ annually.[6]
Currently, TCEQ must report limited data to EPA, including general water system inventory (ex: type of water treatment and size of water system), system violations, and other actions. The new rule requires TCEQ to annually report all Compliance Monitoring Data (CMD) collected from systems to EPA. EPA’s reasoning for this is to improve EPA’s ability to oversee states’ implementation of SWDA and provide the public with more complete and accurate information on compliance.
In summary, the new consumer confidence report rule revisions regarding drinking water quality and public awareness do not require additional data collection by systems, rather new translational responsibilities; increased frequency of reporting; and the addition of public notice responsibilities should an exceedance occur.[7] Furthermore, there are added responsibilities on the TCEQ to provide translation assistance in cases where the system lacks the resources to do so, and to report the full catalogue of information received from systems to the EPA.
[1] “Water Quality Reports” also referred to as Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) summarize information about local drinking water including the source of water, a summary of monitoring results of detected contaminants, a description of any violations, and explanations of additional health information. EPA requires community water systems (CWSs) to provide a CCR to its customers as part of the “Right to Know” rules.
[2] Please note that this summary provides highlights of the major components of the EPA’s new rule, it is not a comprehensive list of all actions taken.
[3] EPA, in the new rule, define corrosion control efforts as consisting of treatment (e.g., pH adjustment, alkalinity adjustment, or corrosion inhibitor addition) and other efforts contributing to the control of the corrosivity of water, e.g., monitoring to assess the corrosivity of water.
[4] 40 CFR §141.154(b): Ending in the report due by July 1, 2001, a system which detects arsenic at levels above 0.025 mg/L, but below the 0.05 mg/L, and beginning in the report due by July 1, 2002, a system that detects arsenic above 0.005 mg/L and up to and including 0.010 mg/L. 40 CFR §141.154(c): A system which detects nitrate at levels above 5 mg/l, but below the MCL.
[5] Examples provided by EPA of “good faith effort” to reach consumers include, but are not limited to, posting reports on the internet; adding links to mailed reports; opt in notification systems; text alerts; publication in local newspaper; and advertising availability of reports in news media and social media.
[6] States, territories, and tribes that have primacy for the Public Water System Supervision program are currently required by regulation to regularly collect monitoring data from water systems that helps them determine if water systems comply with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). These data are known as compliance monitoring data (CMD).
[7] For decades the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) have required public water systems to monitor contaminants in drinking water and submit compliance monitoring data (CMD) to their primacy agencies.