CCR Rule Retrospective Review 1 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Consumer Confidence Report Rule Retrospective Review Electronic Delivery Public Meeting Meeting Summary October 1, 2012

1:00

– 4:00 PM (ET)

Attendees (in alphabetical order) Gavin Baker, OMB Watch Scott A. Biernat, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Adam T. Carpenter, American Water Works Association Matthew J. Corson, American Water Brett W. Doyle, Office of U.S. Senator Pat Toomey Doug Dziak, Nixon Peabody Mindy Eisenberg, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Robbi Farrell, U .S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Activities Stephanie Flaharty, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water James F. Gaughran, Suffolk County Water Authority Adrienne Harris, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

Jamie Ha rris, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Dan Hartnett, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies Katie Greenhaw, OMB Watch David Lipsky, NYC DEP Krista Moravec, Horsley Witten Group , Inc. Ed Moriarty, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Tim Motz, Suffolk County Water Authority Sarah K. Neiderer, DC Water Thomas Noble, Horsley Witten Group , Inc. Bridget O’Grady, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators Sofia Plagakis, OMB Watch
Alan Rober son, American Water Works Association Elizabeth A. Schuster, Food and Water Watch Jeff Szabo, Suffolk County Water Authority Jim Taft, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators Patricia A. Ware, BNA Victoria M. Warmouth, Office of Representative C.W. Bill Young

Carrier Wehling, U. S. EPA, Office of General Counse l

Convene Meeting

T homas N oble welcomed everyone to the public meeting

. Mr. Noble asked that a ttendees
introduce themselves. He w ent through logistics for those in attendance and those in the
online webinar

. Webinar attendees did not have the ability to ask question s

. Mr. Noble
instructed webinar attendees and listeners to p lease submit comments by October 11 , 2012

.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 2 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Today ’s speakers are Mindy Eisenbe rg , Chief, Drinking Water Protection Branch

, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water as well as Adrienne Harris and Jamie Harris , both from the Drinking Water Protection Branch, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

Welcoming Remarks

M indy Eisenberg thanked everyone for joining EPA at the s econd listening session of the CCR Retrospective R eview. EPA started the CCR Retrospective Review about a year ago. In February

, during the first listening session, a lot of issues were discussed . Today

, EPA is focusing on electronic delivery of the CCR

. A lot of feedback and information regarding electronic delivery was received from the first listening session, surveys, and pilot projects. These were all

very helpful as EPA considers electronic delivery.

Ms. Eisenberg stated that Adrienne Harris and Jamie Harris will be going through the document
that is available for public comment

. There will be time for clarifying questions, then prepared statements, then discussions. EPA looks forward to hearing from everyone today.

Meeting Objectives and Review of Agenda

Mr. Noble went through the meeting objectives and reviewed the day’s agenda. He asked that attendees hold questions until the end, during the Clarifying Questions item in the agenda.

Adrienne Har ris stated that her presentation would cover the following items :

Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule Overview CCR Rule Retrospective Review Analysis Draft CCR Electronic Delivery Options and Considerations Document Draft CCR Electronic Delivery Methods Draft CCR Delivery Implementation Approaches for Bill

- Paying Customers Next Steps

Consumer Confidence Report Review Overview

CCRs were part of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase the efforts under the public right

- to

- know act. The CCR provides customers with information on the quality of their drinking water. The purpose is to allow the public to make informed public health choices and increase dialogue with their local public water supplier. Key information required in the CCR is:

System information and source of water

Detected contaminants Compliance with regulations Specific educational materialCCR Rule Retrospective Review 3 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Community water systems (CWS s ) are required to mail or otherwise directly deliver a copy of the CCR to each of its customers by July 1 annually. They must also make a good faith effort to provide CCRs to non

- bill

- paying consumers. The primacy agency must receive a copy along with a certification within three months of mailing the CCR that its content is correct. If the CWS

serv es 100,000 or more people, they must post the CCR on the Internet.

In October of 2011, the Retrospective Review of the CCR was initiated. An online listening session was held in February of this year, which gathered feedback on CCR understandability,

CCR certification, use of CCR to meet Tier 3 public notification requirements, CCR units for reporting detected contaminants, and CCR electronic delivery. EPA reviewed feedback from the listening session along with other information collected from various so urces and released the Draft CCR Electronic Delivery Options and Considerations document. The second public meeting is today, and it is anticipated that the review will completed by the end of 2012.

Of the five focus areas, today’s discussion will center on electronic delivery. EPA looked at similar industries to examine how they adapted to electronic delivery methods, including stormwater, wastewater, and other utilities. Based on the research, five draft methods of electronic delivery and two draft im plementation approaches were identified and released for public comment

.

Today EPA is looking for f eedback on the draft document , particularly comments on how a CWS might implement electronic delivery and how they anticipate customer acceptance of the CCR delivered this way.

There are several k ey points that came from the review :

CWSs must use a mixture of electronic delivery and paper to meet directly deliver requirements
There need to b e multiple options available to deliver the CCR Systems might not see immediate savings due to start up costs

CWSs will need to do outreach before implementing electronic delivery

A ll customers might not be ready for electronic delivery.

There were several independent survey presentation s and pilot stu dies that EPA looked at for information when considering electronic delivery. They were:

American Water Works Association (AWWA) Consumer Survey Presentation (2011) AWWA Cost Savings Utility Survey Presentation (2012) 2012 Minnesota CCR Pilot Study Prese ntation Community Water System Electronic Delivery Pilots in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and ArizonaCCR Rule Retrospective Review 4 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 EPA also conducted m arket research in similar industries on how they transitioned from paper

to electronic delivery, including international drinking water utilities, wastewater, stormwater, public safety, and the energy sector. EPA’s research found there is nothing quite like the CCR

, which is a regulated requirement that the utility ha s to submit. The voluntary programs
described send ing a postcard with multiple delivery options to request the customer ’ s delivery preference. Others used e lectronic bill ing to invite customers to “opt in” for electronic delivery.

EPA is currently conducting a cost savings estimate for systems s erving more than 10

, 000

customers. Data sets being used are from AWWA, the state of Minnesota

, and the 2011 EPA Information Collection Request for the Public Water System Supervision Program. The analysis
evaluates start up costs and how long it will be before the CWS gets a return on those costs and
starts to achieve cost savings compared to distribution of a paper CCR

. They recognized that
systems are starting at different points and different scenario s are being consider ed. The analysis will be part of the final summary document

.

Ms. Jamie Harris provided an overview of the Draft CCR Electronic Delivery Options and
Considerations Document.

Through the Retrospective Review, EPA has concluded that electronic delivery is allowed under
the CCR Rule as long as it is directly delivered to each customer. An interpretative memo with
an attachment will be issued by EPA as a product of the review

, which provides details and
considerations for electronic de livery of the CCR.

The Draft CCR Electronic Delivery Options and Considerations Document will be the attachment. It describes the electronic delivery methods and approaches and lists electronic delivery program considerations for CWSs as well as includ es a limitations and advantages matrix of the methods and additional aspects of CCR Rule requirements CWSs should consider.

There are two ways proposed to implement the draft approaches that focus on how a utility will deliver their CCRs: paper with an op tion for electronic delivery , or electronic delivery with an option for paper delivery

. For each approach, there are five draft electronic delivery
methods:

1. CCR is embedded in the email message

2. Email the CCR as a file attachment

3. Email direct URL to CCR

4. Mail direct URL to CCR

5. Additional electronic delivery that satisfies “otherwise directly deliver”

A CWS may decide which approach is best for delivering the CCR to its customers. EPA interprets the existing rule language so that two elements must be met for electronic delivery:

If using an URL, a CWS must provide a direct URL to the CCR.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 5 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 If a CWS is aware of a customer’s inability to receive a CCR electronically, it must continue providing a paper CCR (or follow requirements for distribution by other mea ns if the system has a small system mailing waiver.)

There are cost limitations that a CWS may want to consider such as technology costs (software, bandwidth, etc.), technology hurdles (spam filters, firewalls, etc.), obtaining and maintaining accurate emails, and customer reluctance with unfamiliar emails and attachments. To

overcome some of these chal lenges

, the utility may want to conduct preliminary outreach to its

customers to ensure that the CCR is being delivered.

Ms. J. Harris provided an overview of the five methods for electronic delivery with an example of how each might be implemented. The f irst method is embedding the CCR in the email

message . An example was presented that showed the text and tables in the body of an email. With this option, the customer does not have to take further actions

.

For the second method, the utility e mail s the CCR as a file attachment, typically a PDF. The
third method is the CWS emails a direct URL to the CCR on a publicly

- available Internet site. The URL must navigate directly to a webpage that displays the CCR.

The next two methods do not necessarily requ ire email. The fourth method relies on the CWS

to mail the customer the direct URL to the CCR. This notification may be, but is not limited to, a postcard, water bill insert, statement on the water bill or community newsletter.

The final method , a ddit ional electronic delivery that satisfies “otherwise directly deliver” (to
account for future technologies)

, would allow a CWS to deliver a CCR through a method that will “otherwise directly deliver” to each bill

- paying customer. This is very br o ad to include
techn ology not available yet, and it must be done in coordination with the primacy agency

.

Methods not meeting the existing CCR Rule requirements are those that do not provide a direct URL to the CCR and requires customer s to click more than once to find the CCR on the utility’s
website. S olely using social media for bill

- paying customers also does not meet the requirement. It is acceptable as one o f the combined methods to reach non

- bill

- paying customers, but does not meet the requirement of “ot herwise directly deliver” to bill

- paying

customers.

Ms. A. Harris continued with the presentation and discussed implementation of the electronic delivery approaches f o r bill

- paying customers.

For each approach

, the CWS would be expe cted to do a public outreach campaign. For paper delivery of the CCR with electronic delivery option

, the utility notifies customers that electronic delivery is available and if the customer responds that electronic delivery is their preference

, then that is how they will r eceive it. If the customer does not identify an electronic delivery preference, the CWS continues to deliver a paper CCR.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 6 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 For electronic delivery with paper CCR delivery option, the CWS delivers the CCR electronically, with an option to request a paper C CR . The c ustomer must respond if they do not wish to receive their CCR electronically. I f the customer does not request a paper CCR

, the utility

assume s they want to receive the CCR electronically

.

Overall considerations for a CWS as it implements elect ronic delivery include:

Conduct public outreach to inform customers of the upcoming change in delivery method and opportunity to contact the CWS with any concerns. Display the direct URL to the CCR on every mailing (e.g., quarterly water bill.)

Send a dedicated email (with a CCR

- related subject line) informing customers of the availability of the CCR each year. Manage email databases regularly to ensure correct emails are being used for electronic delivery to customers.

A CWS may want to consider keepi ng a record of each customer’s delivery preference
for future CCR deliveries.

Additional aspects of CCR that may be affected by electronic delivery were reviewed. Electronic delivery could be an additional way to reach non

- bill

- paying customer s . With re gards to the multilingual requirement of the CCR Rule, CWS s may want to translate or include a translate d
statement in elect r onic communications if required by the primacy agency to provide a
translated statement in the CCR . Electronic delivery does not r eplace s mall sys tem delivery

waivers , but it could be another option. Finally, p rimacy agencies may want to add an option for electronic delivery to their certification form.

In summary, t he memo provides a draft framework for electronic delivery of the CCR. It
outlines some considerations as well as highlighting aspects of the rule that still must be met.
The bottom line is that a CWS must make sure that CCRs are being directly delivered to all bill

paying customers.

EPA’s next steps are to take public comments through October 11, 2012, which can be done by
email: ccrretrospectivereview@epa.gov . At the end of the year, the f inal product will include a
CCR I nterpretiv e M emo with an attachment, which will be based on the document available for

comment . The Summary I ssues D ocument will also be available

, which will summarize the findings of the Retrospective Review. EPA will then begin to develop d ifferent outreach

act ivities to explain final decisions that ha ve come out of the review. The Agency will be developing considerations for assisting CWS s as they implement electronic delivery . Holding a
webinar is one possibility.

Mr. Noble asked if there were any clarifyin g questions

.

[There were n one. ]CCR Rule Retrospective Review 7 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Public Input

The following registered to make statements. They are presented in a lphabetical order by last

name

.

Scott A

. Biernat , Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

Mr. Biernat read a prepared statement on behalf of Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) , which is an organization of the largest publicly owned drinking water systems in the United States. AMWA's membership collectively serves more than 130 million

customers

. The major points o f the statement were:

“The options in the draft ‘Electronic Delivery Options and Considerations’ paper represent a practical approach that allows water utilities and their customers wide flexibility in how CCRs are distributed and received

. ”

The use of a direct URL link on a printed bill, postcard , or similar means will result in efficiencies and cost reductions by significantly reducing paper, printing, and mailing

costs. Customers will still be able to request a hard

- copy by mail.

The additional labor an d software requirements to maintain tracking efforts may offset savings from reduced printing and postage costs. “It is critical that all of the electronic delivery options discussed in the September 4 draft are included in EPA’s final guidance.” “...Expandi ng electronic CCR delivery options in no way changes the requirement that utilities make ‘good faith’ efforts to reach all water customers...Increased electronic availability of CCRs could expand the overall reach of CCRs...” “Increased flexibility in electron ic CCR delivery...presents a unique opportunity to disseminate important drinking water information more efficiently, while saving rate paying customers millions of dollars each year.”

Adam T

. Carpenter , American Water Works Assoc i ation

Mr. Carpenter read a prepared statement on behalf of the American Water Works Association (AWWA)

, which represents approximately 4,000 drinking water utilities and 50,000 members nationally, covering approximately 80% of the nation’s water supply

. Key points from his

statement were:

“ Once finalized, the electronic delivery methods identified in this memo will pave the way for more effective and more efficient communication between drinking water utilities and customers with respect to CCRs. We wo uld like to see this report finalized as soon as feasible, so drinking water utilities can work with their primacy agencies to implement electronic delivery, with some beginn ing in 2013.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 8 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 In an informal discussion among four state regulatory agencies and t hree drinking water utilities just prior to drafting these comments, all present believed there would be no reason why utilities and primacy agencies would not be able to move forward with electronic delivery in 2013, so long as this EPA report is finalize d on schedule at or
before the end of 2012.

The list of delivery methods listed in Table 1 of the draft memo is comprehensive and recognizes that new technologies may emerge in the future. It also acknowledges that although some utilities have up to dat e customer email addresses on file, many do not, and therefore effective electronic delivery options must include those that do not require collection and maintenance of email addresses.

AWWA conducted a survey of its member utilities in summer 2012, and found the following:

- Savings of nearly $20 million annually may be realized in printing and postage costs as nearly 93% of utilities implement electronic delivery.

- 30

- 40% of water utilities will voluntarily provide more information and/or update
inform ation more frequently with electronic delivery, as adding additional information would otherwise increase printing and postage costs.

- The production of CCRs uses as many as 44,000 trees annually, equivalent to about 63 acres of forest, most of which will b e eliminated as utilities implement electronic delivery, plus additional benefits from reduced ink and energy use.

Electronic delivery is a sensible method to bring water quality information to consumers when they want it. Utilities fully support gettin g water quality information out to their

customers.

Furthermore, utilities will be happy to provide paper copies of the CCR to customers upon request, and AWWA agrees that the URL provided on a notification should link directly to the electronic CCR.

AWW A would like to encourage EPA to finalize the draft interpretative memo and attachment as soon as possible, and to communicate with state primacy agencies and
utilities to assist with implementation.”

Matthew J . Corson , American Water

Mr. Corson state d that American Water serves 15 million customers in 30 states and mails 3
million CCRs annually . They are a strong proponent of the Right

- to

- Know Act and applaud EPA
in their efforts today . They are encouraged by the draft report and are hopeful that th ese options will be available in 2013.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 9 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 A majority of the CCRs they mail are bill inserts, and to keep it within the appropriate size, they are not able to include all the information they would like to. They see this as a missed opportunity. American Wa ter has taken steps to post the CCR on the Internet along with other information related to questions they receive from customers. They feel that by posting the information on their website, customers are able to access more info rmation about their partic ular service area, and not have to read about the entire system once a year , as it is presented in the CCR

. This is providing better service.

Using alt ernative delivery approach es , American Water can meet constraints and share all the information they want to share, all while achieving environmental bene fits . T hank you

.

James F

. Gaughran , Suffolk County Water Authority

Mr. Gaughran of Suffolk County Water Authority introduced himself as the Chairm an of the

non

- profit, public entity in New York. They have the l argest water supply sourced sol el y with groundwater and serve 1.2 mill ion residents

. To provide their customers with precise detailed
info rmation , it is a large expense . They have t aken steps to make the CCR far more user friendly ; however, they are here today to call for permission to provide it by electronic means

. This year, t hey paid $ 85

, 000 to mail the report as a supplement in the local free new s paper.

They strongly believe that electronic delivery shou ld be the primary means to provide quality
information . C onsidering the costs associate d with the distribution of a paper CCR

, they
wonder if customers find it in the free newspaper and dige st it. The y consider it a waste of

paper. They want customers t o easily locate information. One way would be to allow them to
put some o f the savings that would be achieved from switching to electronic delivery to improve access and service

. Money could be invested and directly impact a well source.

Mike G

. Keegan

, National Rural Water Association

Mr. Keegan read a prepared statement on behalf of the National Rural Water Association,
which has 33

, 000 small and rural community water supply members

. Key points from his

statement were:

“Small and rural communities u rge the EPA to adopt the proposed “notification that [the] CCR is available on website” option included in EPA’s draft options for electronic delivery because this option would result in additional drinking water quality information for consumers, improved accessibility and constantly available consumer information, and greatly reduce the cost of distributing the reports.”

“This option would improve public access to the CCR information by allowing the information to be available constantly on the Internet (not only once a year), make it easier for water systems to timely update the content of the information, and would not
be cost

- prohibitive to include additional drinking water information.”CCR Rule Retrospective Review 10 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 “Consumers without Internet access would still be pr ovided a pa per copy of the CCR.”

“The financial savings from paper publishing, copying, mailing and from potentially maintaining a complex consumer email data

- system would be an appreciated cost savings to local communities.”

“Small communities often have competing public expenditures and limited funding

– and adoption of the ‘ notification that [t he] CCR is available on website’ would allow local communities to more effectively meet their competing public health challenges. ”

David Lipsky , New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Mr. Lipsky oversees the preparation of the CCR and thanks EPA for considering electronic delivery. The NYC DEP support s electronic delivery as one of the met hods to effectively

communicate with customers

. They sent 865,000 CC Rs, which cost $325,000. Copies are also available by calling the C ity ’ s 311 service. Copies are also available on the website. It is time to bring the CCR into the 21 st century. Much advancement has been made since the Rule was

written in 1998 to meet needs of customers

. In NYC

, they use electronic meter readings ;

customers can receive electronic alerts ; they are also using social media. The tool box is growing. These options w ould allow each CWS to find the methods most effective to their

environment. Redirecting resources to improv ing awareness would improve equity in their ability to communicate effectively

. They also have a diverse population and have the ability to
translate in to ten langua ges. Electronic delivery would allow them to have more info rmation
translated

. It wo uld also allow them to track customers as they view the CCR on the website. Currently their website receives 26

, 000 views.

Sofia Plagakis , OMB Watch

Ms. Plagakis read a prepared statement on behalf of OMB Watch

. OMB Watch is an independent, nonprofit organization that advocates for a more transparent and accountable government. Key points from her statement we re:

“EPA’s proposal lays out various options for electronic delivery but fails to provide clear standards for electronic delivery. Without clear standards in place, the proposed changes could actually reduce public access to drinking water information required by
the Consumer Confidence Rule.”

There ar e two concerns with printing a web address on a bill: “could be buried in the fine print of a routine water bill, and very few people will find them or the reports

, ” and
“almost one third of American households is without at

- home broadband Internet and

cou ld have difficulty accessing the online water report.”CCR Rule Retrospective Review 11 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 “Since EPA’s Consumer Confidence Rule requires water quality reports to be ‘directly delivered’ to all customers, this proposal would seem to violate the agency’s own
standard. We believe that water companies should be required to post water quality reports online and should continue mailing the reports unless customers opt out and request electronic delivery.”

One of the major failings of the CCR rule is lack of design standards, which makes it
dif ficult for the public to understand the information presented. Guidance and standard templates are suggested.

Jim Taft , Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

Mr. Taft thanked EPA for identifying the CCR as an appropriate rule for Retrospect ive Review

. To have effective customer communication requires improving the ways to do it. They need to take advantage of technology advances and expand communications

. The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ( ASDWA ) has had an interest in improving the CCR to improve

communi c ation and reduce costs for both the CWS and state certification process

. ASDWA has
work ed collaboratively to review the ethicality of electronic delivery. It is achievable with in requirements of the current regula tions. They support the use of Internet posting, so long as the customer can go directly to a CCR link. A phone contact should also be included for thos e who wish to receive a pa per copy. Electronic delivery will a llo w a customer to “ click here ” to

rece ive more in formation. They concur with t he brea d th of optio n s in the September 25th
document and find the table of adv antages and disadvantages especially useful for the reader to meet their particular needs.

[ 15 minute break ]

Facilitated Discussion

Mr. Noble facilitated a discussion among the attendees . He intro duced some overall ground rules and then posed questions to the group.

Mr. Noble stated, i n relation to the concept of sending out a URL or web address to a customer,
there was some concerns about how that is made noticeable to a customer. Asking those in the water industry, how would the URL be noticeable to their custom ers?

Mr. Corson re sponded that they would propose to do a bill insert before they put the link on
the bill. It would ann ounce that they are going to provide the CCR in a different, more environmentally friendly way, and there will be a URL on their bill. They would also state that if the customer wanted a paper copy, they could contact th em.

Mr. Roberson offered an example. They all used to receive their social security statements annually. Then they got a notice to tr ack their statements online. The statement is an important document and t his shows how a government agency has made the transition.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 12 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Ano ther example is how we submit our taxes. Now it is done online. Having different tools available to systems should be encouraged in the final document.

Mr. Hartman stated that links could be on every quarterly bill. Electronic delivery provides an opportunity to have the information in front of the customers and available throughout th e year rather than just in July.

Mr. Noble stated that he would also like to hea r from an organization that EPA typically does not hear from, and asked Ms. Schuster of the Food and Water Watch for her thoughts.

Ms. Schuster responded that their thoughts correspond with OMB Watch

. She thinks it is great
that the utilities would include more information , but she did not see that as a requirement in
EPA’s draft. She would like to see this more as a requirement.

Mr. Noble asked, in terms of moving to an electronic delivery of a CCR, they have heard from representatives that this w ould give an option to inc rease info rmation that would be included in a CCR, such as more information on contaminants or a local research project. What would you be adding to a CCR ?

Mr. Cor s on responded that they have 600 wells, so their report is vol umi nous with a lot of small

p rint . The average cust omer can’t figure it out. T hey might see something that looks like a well

in their community, but they’re not sure. Also, t he ir CCR is buried in a newspaper as a supplement. A lot of people read it and use it now. Electro nic ally, if they had it on a website, a

customer could put in their address and find out specific info rmation about the well in their

area.

Mr. Noble asked if it would be the sam e info rmation or would it be new.

Mr. Cor son responded they could expand the information provided. People would know where
the i r wate r is coming from ; in his system now, they don’t know exactly

. T he water system is
limited with their CCR. They have to stick with what is required. They do post online their basic water quality summaries that go above and beyond the CCR requirements

. If they post the CCR

on line, they could make different tables for different communities. They could also provide
addition al information on water conservation and talk about their research program

.

Ms. Neiderer stated that i nside the electronic ver s ion they could have an active link that has
additional testing available to their customer s . In a hard copy they may see a link , but not go to their computer and type it in. In an electronic version, they can click directly on the link . In addition, with a hyper link

, they would proudly put a statement that their water system meets
standards and where they can go for more infor ma tion

.

Mr. Baker commented that t hese are all exciting ideas and he encourage s all of the water systems to contin ue to explore options. He wonder s if th ere is a necessity to stop prov id ing
reports on paper. He would like to hear more on that. To Mr. Corson, he said he would provideCCR Rule Retrospective Review 13 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 inf o rmation on each well. Is there something in the rules now that would allow him to provide
that information on line today? Is there some aspect of the propos al that would facilitate that ? He is not seeing the cau sation between EPA’s proposal and allowing these ideas to move
forward.

Mr. Gaughran stated that they are working to ensure that the data is accessible to the public
and customers can type in their address to find information related to their water . What this
would do would reduce their expense s to enhance their website. T he CCR document is 20

pages and contains a lot of info rmation. One of the things they are proud of is they have been able to push pi lot programs and there are innovative creative things that they can pass along to

customers . Can they do it now ? S ure.

Mr. Corson continued by stating that they have started to take those approach es. They post water quality statements on the Internet and there is information on research . If custom ers only look at the CCR , they are o nly getting part of the picture

. It would help i f they can get

customers to the web . They have 3.5 million CCRs to print. If they have to print, they have to
limit its size. If they don’t have to print, there is a hu ge environmental impact. If he can use the

amount being printed and add to the website, they can update it and do customer outreach. It

is about getting customers what they need when they want it. If they want to know about water quality, they are going to go on the Internet or call.

Ms. Warmouth stated that they w ould allow an amendment to allow electronic delivery of the
CCR and thanked EPA for their work

. Their bill wa s introduced after a constituent contacted
them , not a utility . He kept receiving a CCR that he didn’t want . He thought it was a huge waste of money. He talked with h is neighbors and n o one understood what it said . All they
cared about was that when they gave water to their children it was safe

. Electronic delivery
would a llow water systems to alleviate resources for othe r things that contribute to making drinking water safe

. For local utilities, budgets are under pressure and there have been a l ot of layoffs, so it’s the ability for local utilities to respond to public co mments about spending

.

Mr. Lipsky stated that in trying to contain costs, the theme they have to consider is that one
size does not fit all. They have to have flexible approaches. Their agency work s closely with
their primacy agency and health department to review the CCR

. Their idea is not to eliminate printed copies, but it only goes so far. When you have a lot of apartment buildings , it is not an
effective too l . Having the option for electronic delivery can get the word out to more people quicker and more efficient

. On the website, t hey are able to track performance by counting
clicks on the link to ga u g e interest . It is a lot more effective to use

.

Mr. Carpenter added that i t’s also about do ing the right thing. A vast majority are pub lic
system s

. They have an obligation to their customers to spend money wisely. Think of all the thing s they do elec tronically now.

Mr. Noble referred back to the presentation and sho w ed the slide listing the draft implementation approaches: d elivery of the CCR continues as being paper and the customerCCR Rule Retrospective Review 14 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 “opts in ” for electronic delivery or delivery of the CCR is through electronic delivery and the

customer c an have the option to still get a paper copy. He asked the group if there was a preferen ce and what their thoughts were on these two approaches.

Mr. Carpenter commented that both were valid methodologies. It needs to be a local decision to determine which approach is the best method f or the system. There may be some concerns that some migh t not get the electronic CCR

. They have heard that you can reach more with the

“ opt out ” approach, but it sh ould be left to the system to decide

.

Mr. Corson commented that the electron ic option would be the best for American Water

. Most of their customers have Internet access

. They would ask those who want paper to

requ est it

.

Ms. Neiderer stated that b oth o p tions w e re important. They would continue with the paper
and supplement with electronic media. If they would ever move to a stage with a ccurate

customer email addresses , they would transition to electronic delivery . Tech nology will change.

Not all their customers have email accounts, but they are moving towards it.

Mr. Biernat responded that , from what they hear from their agencies, mun icipal budgets are tight . T he potential for cost savings is critical and in their best interest, which is why people are advocating for approach two . If EPA require s sys tems to track a data base, it is going to take away from something else. T hey need fl exibility to address local issues. There are a lot of systems with pressure of maint a ining their inf rastructure. Historically, CWS s want to get that
info rmation out, a nd there are a lot of ex a m ples of systems going ab ove and beyond. They need the money to address other pressing health issues too.

Mr. Lipsky stated that the re needs to be flexibility fo r each system to choose the best option to
meet their needs

. In their case, t he reques t for a hard copy would go t hrough the C ity’s 311 system, which is a system for all city services. The document language should have flexibility as
to where the request for a paper CCR goes.

Mr. Taft commented that they would prefer to have both options on the table. He asked a clarifying que stion on the second approach. It could be triggered by either a utility send ing

customers a URL link, or it could be sent through an email. Is that correct?

Mr. Noble responded that, yes that is correct.

Ms. A

. Harris responded that an y of the five e lectronic delivery methods could be used.

Mr. Baker responded that there are two approaches, and five methods. The first three are all
email based. They’ve heard that system s don’t have extensive databases with emails. If a system was to use one o f the three methods, and there was an option for a p ap er, they would
email e veryone they have an address for , and they would also receive an email stating that they
can get a p a per copy

.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 15 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Mr. Roberson responded that there is no intention to leave customers out. They are still going to have the paper copy available. As the system grows, there will be a transition. Systems need

to track who gets a paper copy and who does not

. Four is the best option.

Mr. Bak er continued, that he was hoping to hear whether he is right in his understanding, that under the draft guidance, utilities would email the report to everyone they have an email address for and that would satisfy the requirement.

Ms. A . Harris stated that for those a utility h as an email for, they email . Everyone el se would receive a paper copy.

Mr. Baker responded that on page 6 of the draft document , the burden is on the customer.

Ms. A. Harris stated that he is referring to an approach

.

Mr. Baker asked h ow a customer know s that the CCR is available.

Mr. Noble added that in this situation, when there is not an email, a postcard that the CCR is

ava i lable is mailed.

Mr. Roberson also added that n obody is going to get nothing. The i ntent is to shift it to be a

more green approach . The intent is not to stop the flow of information to customers, but to be

more innovative in the ways they get more information to the m

.

Ms. Warmouth commented that, for example, you get a credit card statement either online or
mailed. I t is always available. In the second approach, i f you have given your email, or have opted for an e

- bill, then the utility would already have your information. They would use a postal address to reach those who have not provided an email.

Ms. Plagakis r esponded that their concern with option 2 is to ensure that there are clear standards in place. These are great ways for public outreach, but how can they ensure that all

CWS s will follow them

. That is why they think there should be standards in the prop osal

.

Ms. Warmouth stated, that, f or them , in terms of regulations , the more flexibility there is , the greater systems can reach customers. They are on the ground . T hey know what thei r community needs and how to communicate with them . If EPA get s too p rescriptive, it limits local ability.

Mr. Lips ky responded that EPA can’t be over prescriptive on what goes out in each bill. T his is
the ty pe of thing that can be reviewed by the primacy agency

. To over

- regulate each bill and message is going to o far.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 16 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Mr. Carpenter stated that he e cho es Mr. Lipsky’s comments. Having clear standards from EPA
is one level . There is also the state pri macy level. They lay out clear methods for implementation for EPA’s rules. It falls to the state. The primacy agencies will work with the
utilities as this process move s forward.

Mr. Taft stated that the core content for what goes into the CCR is there. To ensure that no one is left out, that is an additional state role. W hat is exciting is the op portunity to include

m ore in f ormat i on and provide a more holistic picture.

Ms. Neiderer asked if EPA h as had discussions of the guidance with primacy agencies. Would
tho se messages have to be reviewed and would the primacy agency have to have a chance to

comment p rior to distribution?

Ms. A. Harris responded that they have not talked to primacy agencies at this time about direct implementation . The draft document fits within the current regulation.

Mr. Noble asked if there are other d e livery met h ods that have not been c onsidered. Does this
capture electronic delivery as they understand it?

Mr. Carpenter responded that he can think of two slight variations . With regards to the direct delivery primary requirement, a water syst em might have a special communicati o n form that they run internally. This may impact delivery of the CCR possibly in the future . In terms of good faith effort, there are many other ways to communicate

.

Mr. Taft added that with regards to s ocial media, there is a concern , mirroring those e xpress ed

in Ms. Harris’ presentation. It is hard to determine what would be available in the future. It
would be n ice to consider them as they b ecome available.

Ms. Warmouth commented that she re ceives notifications of bills by text , and perhaps texting is another delivery method

.

Mr. Hartman stated that t hese ideas have promise. The common thread is the CCR is hosted on the utility ’ s website. The requirement is filled by sending out a direct link. It is difficult to predict . There are many different ways to communicate

.

Mr. Noble asked if there were any other thoughts . Sometimes it is difficult to maintain accurate records for email. Are there o ther complications that people see?

Mr. Hartman stated that s pam is a concern . I f the email ended up in a spam filter, the

customer may never see it. They have all had experience with this issue . If the requirement that the actually PDF or the report were an attachment, there would concern among many customers (i.e.

, does it contain a virus ?)

. The first time sent would bring a lot of hesitation to open the attachment

.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 17 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Mr. Corson stated that i nternally, since he would need to send a file to 350,000 customers,
bandwidth would be a concern.

Mr. Baker asked if anyone had experiences emailing CCRs as an attachment and how customers
reacted.

Mr. Carpenter answer that they have done some pilot studies and surveys. American Water
has not had any systems that have used the attachment. There was one that used the direct

URL to distribute to college students

. The college told the utility not to send t he CCRs to the
school any more, so they used the student email address list to distribute it . It was authorized by the state primacy agency. Also in York , Pennsylvania , they use d public outreach for a couple

years. They hired a vendo r to deliver 7 ,000 to 8

, 000 emails. They had some issues with some coming back, and reconciled by getting customers paper copies. Some approaches are more fea si ble than others.

Ms. O ’G rady stated that w hile the email options may not be appropriate for American Water or large mun icipal agencies, t here are smaller communities where embedded or attach ed CCRs might be appropriate. They don’t have Internet sophistication , but have PDF capabilit y. EPA
need s to keep the options open.

Ms. A. Harris stated that they did do some market research . There was a utility that sent out a PDF in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Baker asked if there were data on how that experience went with that system.

Ms. A. Har ris responded that about 88% were delivered.

Mr. Baker asked if it w ould it be possible to put that information in the docket

.

Mr. Taft stated that they haven’t talked about the situation that exists today. There is an assumption that everyone is read ing their paper copies. Research shows that that isn’t the
case. There are o ther ways to engage customers . P eople over time get immune to receiving paper copies. How do they bre ak out of that ? S ome of the se options give an opportunity to do

so

.

Mr. Noble stated that they have heard about how people want to receive the information, and about being greener . How would a utility as sess their community to see which option they would prefer and what is the level of acceptance? O utreach campaigns were men tioned . What
would that look like?

Mr. Carpenter asked for clarification.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 18 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Mr. Noble responded that, as an example, you are a wa ter utility and want to use electronic delivery. How do you let customers know they can receive the CCR electronically? How do you
collect email addresses?

Mr. Carpenter stated that they first consideration is technological. S ome water system s are becoming more advanced, while many have no emails on file. The tech nology limitations are wide, but he is confident they will imp rove over time. The second is keeping track of
communications with their customers. E ach utility could exam in e their past history and use that as a starting poi nt. They can also w ork with their states to see what other system s are experiencing

.

Mr. Noble asked h ow they go about finding what methods are the best for the system.

Mr. Lipsky responded that other than surveys, it should be EPA’s responsibility to keep
info rmation about constraints and customer reaction s to the CCRs . Other than surveys, they
would have to look at technology and figure out which is the best method. It will be different for each community. For example, if you PDF a CCR in color with 16 pages , it creates a very large file. This is not a good approach for them . For a smal l system, it might work. E ach system needs to track performance. They can pilot approaches through the EPA’s P roject E xcel lence and the Retrospective Review. T hat ’ s the advant a g e to electronic delivery, it has immediate
results.

Ms. Neiderer stated t hat when s ending the paper copy they cannot track who is reading it . If they changed to electronic delivery

, they would use web

- based analytics to track and gauge who is viewing the CCR to see if they should go back to a p a per copy.

Mr. Noble asked if it make s a different i f a utility already has an e

- billing system. Do you

a lready have some emails collected? Does that change how you approach outreach and
electronic del i very ?

Ms. Neiderer stated that it m ay be directly linked. T hose that are signed up for e

- billing may be interested in that form, and it is a no

- brainer that this is how they should be sending the CCR.

Mr. Corson responded that if they are e

- billing, then they probably have a good email address because money is involved

.

Mr. Carpen ter stated that c learly for the email options, if e

- billing is in place, it is probably the
most common system. An em ail version is going to revolve around an e

- billing sys te m rather than collecting emails.

Mr. Noble asked the group if there were any sho w stoppers in EPA’s list of considerations as

CWS s implement electronic delivery . Was there anything that EPA has not considered or should be aware of ?CCR Rule Retrospective Review 19 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 [ No one responded.]

Mr. Noble asked if there are any other methods of communication for the good fait h effort that EPA should be aware of. Social media has already been mentioned

.

Mr. Baker stated that he did not have a n answer to Mr. Noble’s question but wanted to express comments from Lynn Thorpe . She has some strong opinions on the good fa i th effort and would like to see it strengthened. He did not know specifics, but there is room for improvement, and should be part of the Retrospective Review

.

Mr. Noble asked Mr. Baker to please remind Ms. Thorpe that she can provide her comments
until O ctober 11, 2012.

Mr. Carpenter responded that it is an “all of the above.” With a ny way to communicate with its

customers there will be resource constraints. Each system knows their customers best and how
to reach them

.

Ms. O ’G rady stated that these efforts are in addition to the underlining require ments and rules.
These are add

- ons, improvements, and enhancements. These are not i n place of. We are not removing options, we are only adding to them

.

Ms. Warmouth stated that she can only speak from p ersonal experience. This year wa s the
first time she received a CCR

. She asked the manager of her old apartment building why she had not received one while living there

. His response was th ey did not allow the water utility
to mail the CCR to tenants

, but post ed it in the building. She felt the water agencies are making a good faith effort, and went above and beyond.

Mr. Gaughran stated that they cou ld ask their local municipalities that regulate the local cab le stations to put on a public service ann ouncem ent as well as on their website to let the public
know that the CCR is available online.

Mr. Noble concluded the open discussion. He reminded attendees that comments can be received through October 11, 2012 at ccrretrospectivereview@epa.gov

.

Wrap

- Up and Closing Remarks

Ms. Eisenberg thanked ever yone for joining EPA . As a reminder, October 11 th is the date by
which to submit comments

. EPA will be evaluating all the information and comments collected today, and finalizing our inter p r etative m emo . Additional information will be posted on the

CCR web page. She asked that water systems d o not start with electronic delivery until EP A has
finalized the memo and the Retro spective R eview . EPA will be talking with ASDWA at their
annual meeting on ideas about how to best roll

- out electronic delivery.CCR Rule Retrospective Review 20 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012 Mr. Lipsky asked if there are other aspects of the CCR Rule that will be subject to the Retrospective Review.

Ms. Eisenberg responded that in the issue summary EPA will be talking about use of CCR to

meet T ier 3 requirements

, CCR units, CCR delivery certification and CCR clarity and understanding

. They will lay out their thoughts and next steps. Given that EPA sees electroni c delivery allowable in the current regulation, they thought they would move forward with that.

EPA will be focused on outreach activities in the coming year and are l o oking forward to working with states and utilities in the next year.