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 Harris, 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 Roberson, 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 Counsel

Convene Meeting

Thomas Noble welcomed everyone to the public meeting. Mr. Noble asked that attendees 

introduce themselves. He went through logistics for those in attendance and those in the 

online webinar. Webinar attendees did not have the ability to ask questions. Mr. Noble

instructed webinar attendees and listeners to please submit comments by October 11, 2012.
CCR Rule Retrospective Review 2 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012

Today’s speakers are Mindy Eisenberg, 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

Mindy Eisenberg thanked everyone for joining EPA at the second listening session of the CCR 

Retrospective Review. 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 Harris 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 material
CCR Rule Retrospective Review 3 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012

Community water systems (CWSs) 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 

serves 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 sources 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 implementation approaches were identified and released for 

public comment.

Today EPA is looking for feedback 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 key points that came from the review:

CWSs must use a mixture of electronic delivery and paper to meet directly deliver 

requirements

There need to be 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

All customers might not be ready for electronic delivery.

There were several independent survey presentations and pilot studies 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 Presentation

Community Water System Electronic Delivery Pilots in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Arizona
CCR Rule Retrospective Review 4 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012

EPA also conducted market 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 has to submit. The voluntary programs 

described sending a postcard with multiple delivery options to request the customer’s delivery

preference. Others used electronic billing to invite customers to “opt in” for electronic delivery.

EPA is currently conducting a cost savings estimate for systems serving 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 scenarios are being considered. 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 delivery 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 includes 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 option 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 means 

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 challenges, 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 first 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 emails 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 require 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, additional 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 broad to include 

technology 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 customers to click more than once to find the CCR on the utility’s 

website. Solely using social media for bill-paying customers also does not meet the 

requirement. It is acceptable as one of the combined methods to reach non-bill-paying 

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

customers.

Ms. A. Harris continued with the presentation and discussed implementation of the electronic 

delivery approaches for bill-paying customers.

For each approach, the CWS would be expected 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 receive 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 CCR. The customer must respond if they do not wish to

receive their CCR electronically. If the customer does not request a paper CCR, the utility 

assumes they want to receive the CCR electronically.

Overall considerations for a CWS as it implements electronic 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 keeping 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 customers. With regards to the 

multilingual requirement of the CCR Rule, CWSs may want to translate or include a translated

statement in electronic communications if required by the primacy agency to provide a 

translated statement in the CCR. Electronic delivery does not replace small system delivery 

waivers, but it could be another option. Finally, primacy agencies may want to add an option 

for electronic delivery to their certification form.

In summary, the 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 billpaying 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 final product will include a 

CCR Interpretive Memo with an attachment, which will be based on the document available for 

comment. The Summary Issues Document will also be available, which will summarize the 

findings of the Retrospective Review. EPA will then begin to develop different outreach 

activities to explain final decisions that have come out of the review. The Agency will be 

developing considerations for assisting CWSs as they implement electronic delivery. Holding a 

webinar is one possibility.

Mr. Noble asked if there were any clarifying questions.

[There were none.]
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 alphabetical 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 of 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 and 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.”

“...Expanding 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 electronic 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 Association

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 would 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 beginning 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 three 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 finalized 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 date 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 

information 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 be 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 getting 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.

AWWA 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 stated 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 these 

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 Water 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 information about their 

particular 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 alternative delivery approaches, American Water can meet constraints and share all the 

information they want to share, all while achieving environmental benefits. Thank you.

James F. Gaughran, Suffolk County Water Authority

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

non-profit, public entity in New York. They have the largest water supply sourced solely with 

groundwater and serve 1.2 million residents. To provide their customers with precise detailed 

information, it is a large expense. They have taken 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, they paid $85,000 to mail the report as a supplement in the local free newspaper. 

They strongly believe that electronic delivery should be the primary means to provide quality 

information. Considering the costs associated with the distribution of a paper CCR, they

wonder if customers find it in the free newspaper and digest it. They consider it a waste of 

paper. They want customers to easily locate information. One way would be to allow them to 

put some of 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 urge 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 provided a paper 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 [the] 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 supports electronic delivery as one of the methods to effectively 

communicate with customers. They sent 865,000 CCRs, which cost $325,000. Copies are also 

available by calling the City’s 311 service. Copies are also available on the website. It is time to 

bring the CCR into the 21st 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 would allow each CWS to find the methods most effective to their 

environment. Redirecting resources to improving awareness would improve equity in their

ability to communicate effectively. They also have a diverse population and have the ability to 

translate into ten languages. Electronic delivery would allow them to have more information

translated. It would 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 were:

“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 are 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 

could 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 

difficult 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 Retrospective 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

communication and reduce costs for both the CWS and state certification process. ASDWA has 

worked collaboratively to review the ethicality of electronic delivery. It is achievable within 

requirements of the current regulations. 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 those 

who wish to receive a paper copy. Electronic delivery will allow a customer to “click here” to 

receive more information. They concur with the breadth of options in the September 25th

document and find the table of advantages 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 introduced some overall ground 

rules and then posed questions to the group.

Mr. Noble stated, in 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 customers?

Mr. Corson responded that they would propose to do a bill insert before they put the link on 

the bill. It would announce 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 them.

Mr. Roberson offered an example. They all used to receive their social security statements 

annually. Then they got a notice to track their statements online. The statement is an 

important document and this shows how a government agency has made the transition. 
CCR Rule Retrospective Review 12 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012

Another 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 the 

year rather than just in July.

Mr. Noble stated that he would also like to hear 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 would give an option to increase information 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. Corson responded that they have 600 wells, so their report is voluminous with a lot of small 

print. The average customer can’t figure it out. They might see something that looks like a well 

in their community, but they’re not sure. Also, their CCR is buried in a newspaper as a 

supplement. A lot of people read it and use it now. Electronically, if they had it on a website, a 

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

area.

Mr. Noble asked if it would be the same information or would it be new.

Mr. Corson responded they could expand the information provided. People would know where 

their water is coming from; in his system now, they don’t know exactly. The 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

online, they could make different tables for different communities. They could also provide 

additional information on water conservation and talk about their research program.

Ms. Neiderer stated that inside the electronic version they could have an active link that has 

additional testing available to their customers. 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 hyperlink, they would proudly put a statement that their water system meets 

standards and where they can go for more information.

Mr. Baker commented that these are all exciting ideas and he encourages all of the water 

systems to continue to explore options. He wonders if there is a necessity to stop providing 

reports on paper. He would like to hear more on that. To Mr. Corson, he said he would provide 
CCR Rule Retrospective Review 13 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012

information on each well. Is there something in the rules now that would allow him to provide 

that information online today? Is there some aspect of the proposal that would facilitate that? 

He is not seeing the causation 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 expenses to enhance their website. The CCR document is 20 

pages and contains a lot of information. One of the things they are proud of is they have been 

able to push pilot programs and there are innovative creative things that they can pass along to 

customers. Can they do it now? Sure.

Mr. Corson continued by stating that they have started to take those approaches. They post 

water quality statements on the Internet and there is information on research. If customers

only look at the CCR, they are only getting part of the picture. It would help if 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 huge 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 would allow an amendment to allow electronic delivery of the 

CCR and thanked EPA for their work. Their bill was 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 his neighbors and no one understood what it said. All they 

cared about was that when they gave water to their children it was safe. Electronic delivery

would allow water systems to alleviate resources for other things that contribute to making 

drinking water safe. For local utilities, budgets are under pressure and there have been a lot of 

layoffs, so it’s the ability for local utilities to respond to public comments 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 works 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 tool. Having the option for electronic delivery can get the word out to more people

quicker and more efficient. On the website, they are able to track performance by counting 

clicks on the link to gauge interest. It is a lot more effective to use.

Mr. Carpenter added that it’s also about doing the right thing. A vast majority are public 

systems. They have an obligation to their customers to spend money wisely. Think of all the 

things they do electronically now.

Mr. Noble referred back to the presentation and showed the slide listing the draft 

implementation approaches: delivery of the CCR continues as being paper and the customer
CCR 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 can have the option to still get a paper copy. He asked the group if there was a 

preference 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 for the system. There may be some concerns 

that some might not get the electronic CCR. They have heard that you can reach more with the 

“opt out” approach, but it should be left to the system to decide.

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

Most of their customers have Internet access. They would ask those who want paper to 

request it.

Ms. Neiderer stated that both options were important. They would continue with the paper 

and supplement with electronic media. If they would ever move to a stage with accurate

customer email addresses, they would transition to electronic delivery. Technology 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, municipal budgets are 

tight. The potential for cost savings is critical and in their best interest, which is why people are 

advocating for approach two. If EPA requires systems to track a database, it is going to take 

away from something else. They need flexibility to address local issues. There are a lot of 

systems with pressure of maintaining their infrastructure. Historically, CWSs want to get that 

information out, and there are a lot of examples of systems going above and beyond. They 

need the money to address other pressing health issues too.

Mr. Lipsky stated that there needs to be flexibility for each system to choose the best option to 

meet their needs. In their case, the request for a hard copy would go through the City’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 question on the second approach. It could be triggered by either a utility sending

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 any of the five electronic 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 systems don’t have extensive databases with emails. If a 

system was to use one of the three methods, and there was an option for a paper, they would 

email everyone they have an address for, and they would also receive an email stating that they 

can get a paper 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. Baker 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 has an email for, they email. Everyone else 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 how a customer knows that the CCR is available.

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

available is mailed.

Mr. Roberson also added that nobody is going to get nothing. The intent 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 them.

Ms. Warmouth commented that, for example, you get a credit card statement either online or 

mailed. It is always available. In the second approach, if 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 responded 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 

CWSs will follow them. That is why they think there should be standards in the proposal.

Ms. Warmouth stated, that, for them, in terms of regulations, the more flexibility there is, the 

greater systems can reach customers. They are on the ground. They know what their 

community needs and how to communicate with them. If EPA gets too prescriptive, it limits 

local ability.

Mr. Lipsky responded that EPA can’t be over prescriptive on what goes out in each bill. This is 

the type of thing that can be reviewed by the primacy agency. To over-regulate each bill and 

message is going too far.
CCR Rule Retrospective Review 16 Public Meeting Summary

Electronic Delivery October 1, 2012

Mr. Carpenter stated that he echoes Mr. Lipsky’s comments. Having clear standards from EPA 

is one level. There is also the state primacy 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 moves 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. What is exciting is the opportunity to include 

more information and provide a more holistic picture.

Ms. Neiderer asked if EPA has had discussions of the guidance with primacy agencies. Would 

those messages have to be reviewed and would the primacy agency have to have a chance to 

comment prior 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 delivery methods that have not been considered. 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 system might have a special communication 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 social media, there is a concern, mirroring those expressed 

in Ms. Harris’ presentation. It is hard to determine what would be available in the future. It 

would be nice to consider them as they become available.

Ms. Warmouth commented that she receives notifications of bills by text, and perhaps texting

is another delivery method.

Mr. Hartman stated that these 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 other complications that people see?

Mr. Hartman stated that spam is a concern. If 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 internally, 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 the CCRs to the 

school anymore, so they used the student email address list to distribute it. It was authorized 

by the state primacy agency. Also in York, Pennsylvania, they used public outreach for a couple 

years. They hired a vendor 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 

feasible than others.

Ms. O’Grady stated that while the email options may not be appropriate for American Water or 

large municipal agencies, there are smaller communities where embedded or attached CCRs

might be appropriate. They don’t have Internet sophistication, but have PDF capability. EPA

needs 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. Harris responded that about 88% were delivered. 

Mr. Baker asked if it would 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 reading their paper copies. Research shows that that isn’t the 

case. There are other ways to engage customers. People over time get immune to receiving 

paper copies. How do they break out of that? Some of these 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 assess their community to see which option they 

would prefer and what is the level of acceptance? Outreach campaigns were mentioned. 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 water 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. Some water systems are 

becoming more advanced, while many have no emails on file. The technology limitations are 

wide, but he is confident they will improve over time. The second is keeping track of 

communications with their customers. Each utility could examine their past history and use 

that as a starting point. They can also work with their states to see what other systems are 

experiencing.

Mr. Noble asked how 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 

information about constraints and customer reactions 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 small system, it might work. Each system

needs to track performance. They can pilot approaches through the EPA’s Project Excellence

and the Retrospective Review. That’s the advantage to electronic delivery, it has immediate

results. 

Ms. Neiderer stated that when sending 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 paper copy.

Mr. Noble asked if it makes a different if a utility already has an e-billing system. Do you 

already have some emails collected? Does that change how you approach outreach and 

electronic delivery?

Ms. Neiderer stated that it may be directly linked. Those 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. Carpenter stated that clearly for the email options, if e-billing is in place, it is probably the 

most common system. An email version is going to revolve around an e-billing system rather 

than collecting emails.

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

CWSs 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 faith effort that 

EPA should be aware of. Social media has already been mentioned.

Mr. Baker stated that he did not have an answer to Mr. Noble’s question but wanted to express 

comments from Lynn Thorpe. She has some strong opinions on the good faith 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 October 11, 2012.

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

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

to reach them.

Ms. O’Grady stated that these efforts are in addition to the underlining requirements and rules. 

These are add-ons, improvements, and enhancements. These are not in place of. We are not 

removing options, we are only adding to them.

Ms. Warmouth stated that she can only speak from personal experience. This year was 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 they did not allow the water utility 

to mail the CCR to tenants, but posted 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 could ask their local municipalities that regulate the local cable 

stations to put on a public service announcement 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 everyone for joining EPA. As a reminder, October 11th is the date by 

which to submit comments. EPA will be evaluating all the information and comments collected 

today, and finalizing our interpretative memo. Additional information will be posted on the 

CCR web page. She asked that water systems do not start with electronic delivery until EPA has 

finalized the memo and the Retrospective Review. 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 Tier 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 electronic 

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 looking forward to 

working with states and utilities in the next year.