Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0042-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-20T05:00Z

Summary
of
Comments
Received
EPA
received
4
letters
submitting
a
total
of
sixty­
two
suggestions
and/
or
comments
to
the
Federal
Register
(
FR)
notice
published
October
29,
2001
(
66
FR
209).
Comments
were
submitted
from
the
American
Water
Works
Service
Company,
Inc.,
Campaign
for
Safe
and
Affordable
Drinking
Water,
American
Water
Works
Association,
and
the
Massachusetts
Water
Resources
Authority.

The
four
commenters
supported
the
Agency's
efforts
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
Consumer
Right
to
Know
efforts
by
assessing
whether
the
Agency
is
reaching
consumers
through
outreach
initiatives
(
e.
g.,
the
consumer
confidence
reports,
source
water
assessments,
etc.).
A
few
commenters
hoped
this
survey
would
help
EPA
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
(
CCR)
and
provide
EPA
with
a
basis
to
reevaluate
CCR
requirements.
Two
groups
expressed
concern,
indicating
CCRs
are
an
expensive
burden
for
small
water
systems.
They
hoped
this
survey
would
assist
the
agency
in
examining
the
need
for
future
modifications
to
CCR
requirements
during
its
six­
year
review.
In
addition,
they
both
approved
of
EPA's
efforts
to
improve
public
education
measures,
and
applauded
the
Agency
for
taking
the
first
steps
to
develop
this
survey
as
a
tool
to
do
so.

Several
changes
were
made
to
the
questionnaire
based
on
the
sixty­
two
comments
received.
Of
the
31
original
questions,
only
four
remain
untouched.
The
agency
evaluated
each
of
the
comments
seriously
and
incorporated
many
of
the
suggestions
received.
Several
edits
were
suggested
to
make
the
questions
public
friendly
by
using
terminology
the
general
public
is
familiar
with
(
e.
g.,
not
using
words
like
"
distill"
rather
using
"
treatment"
instead).
Other
edits
clarified
the
intent
of
the
survey.

Phrases
were
edited
based
on
several
comments
received
from
the
American
Water
Works
Association
(
AWWA)
to
make
the
questions
more
public
friendly.
AWWA
provided
33
comments,
eleven
of
these
being
suggestions
and
comments
the
agency
should
consider.
Overall
the
Association
felt
the
survey
would
prove
to
be
a
very
useful
tool
in
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
the
consumer
confidence
report.
Twenty­
two
comments
were
specific
to
the
questionnaire
and
provided
edits
for
the
agency
to
consider.
EPA
incorporated
all
the
changes
suggested
unless
based
on
consultation
the
question
was
dropped
all
together.
AWWA
felt
the
Agency
needed
to
reflect
on
post
September
11
health
concerns.
The
agency
did
not
make
these
changes,
and
rather
proceeded
to
rephrase
words
such
as
threat,
contaminate,
etc.
in
order
to
reduce
any
potential
to
cause
unnecessary
alarm.
While
EPA
appreciated
AWWA's
comments,
the
intent
is
to
repeat
this
survey
every
2
to
3
years.
The
agency
did
not
want
to
cause
unnecessary
alarm
and
did
not
want
to
add
questions
that
may
not
be
appropriate
in
subsequent
years.
The
Agency
further
looked
at
the
general
comments,
and
accepted
changes
to
the
survey
(
e.
g.,
clarifying
the
survey
was
being
conducted
on
behalf
of
the
US
EPA
not
by
water
systems
or
utility
providers).
Other
comments
suggested
EPA
revitalize
the
Consumer
Confidence
Report
Workgroup,
provided
suggestions
for
additions
to
the
workgroup,
develop
an
understanding
for
the
drinking
water
and
water
utility
practices
of
the
respondents.
EPA
is
considering
the
possibility
of
conducting
focus
groups
after
gathering
initial
baseline
data
through
the
Drinking
Water
Customer
Satisfaction
Survey.
We
will
use
AWWA's
suggestions
to
benefit
these
focus
groups.

The
Safe
and
Affordable
Drinking
Water
Campaign
provided
6
comments.
The
Campaign
maintained
the
survey
will
show
"
people
remain
very
concerned
about
their
tap
water
quality
from
the
point
of
view
of
health
concerns
as
well
as
taste
and
odor."
Based
on
this
comment,
the
Agency
added
questions
to
establish
a
baseline
of
data
that
will
allow
us
to
gauge
the
level
of
concern
and
trust
the
public
places
in
the
safety
and
quality
of
their
drinking
water.
The
Campaign
requested
that
the
agency
try
to
learn
where
consumers
are
likely
to
go
in
order
to
obtain
more
information,
and
who
provides
the
most
useful
information.
We
agreed
this
was
beneficial,
as
it
would
assist
the
agency
in
spending
dollars
to
target
trusted
populations
in
our
outreach
efforts.
Therefore,
additional
questions
were
added
to
determine
how
consumers
are
receiving
their
information,
and
the
measure
of
trust
they
place
in
this
information.
The
campaign
also
suggested
the
agency
explore
how
individuals
use
their
drinking
water
information.
This
comment
was
similar
to
a
suggestion
made
by
AWWA.
We
accommodated
this
request
by
adding
an
additional
question
to
the
survey.

The
American
Water
Works
Service
Company
(
AWWSC)
provided
13
comments,
five
general
comments
and
eight
comments
suggesting
several
edits
to
clarify
the
questionnaire.
Seven
of
the
eight
recommendations
to
the
content
of
the
questionnaire
were
accepted,
and
one
was
not
as
it
was
no
longer
applicable
due
to
comments
made
by
other
reviewers.
EPA
had
already
deleted
the
question.
Of
the
five
general
comments,
AWWA
supported
EPA's
efforts
and
purpose
to
the
conduct
the
survey.
Three
of
the
five
were
addressed
by
changes
based
on
AWWA's
suggestion.
The
final
comment
expressed
concern
that
asking
questions
regarding
the
dissemination
of
Source
Water
Assessment
Plans
(
SWAPs)
may
be
ill
timed.
AWWA
broached
that
many
states
are
currently
in
the
process
of
conducting
their
assessments.
"
Using
the
results
at
this
time
can
build
in
a
bias
that
the
program
has
been
ineffective."
EPA
received
similar
comments
from
2
other
groups.
The
agency
deleted
several
of
the
SWAP
questions
with
respect
to
the
comments
received.

The
Massachusetts
Water
Resources
Authority
(
MWRA)
submitted
general
comments
after
the
deadline
published
in
the
Federal
Register
Notice;
however,
EPA
accepted
and
considered
the
ten
comments
submitted.
Overall,
the
MWRA
was
very
supportive
of
the
survey's
efforts
and
mirrored
comments
submitted
by
AWWA.
Therefore,
the
concerns
had
already
been
addressed.
MRWA
also
mentioned
the
need
to
determine
if
advisories
are
effectively
alerting
customers
of
public
health
concerns.
EPA
did
not
have
any
questions
requesting
this
type
of
information.
We
added
a
question
response
to
learn
if
respondents
remembered
seeing
any
Public
Health
Notices
and
if
so,
if
they
found
the
information
informative
and
were
they
able
to
act
based
on
the
notice.