美国供水水质信息公开机制的改进——《消费者信心报告》工作小组报告

原文出处：J AWWA，2022，01

翻译：邵宏、阮辰旼

The CCR Working Group Report

美国《消费者信心报告》(CCR)*工作小组报告

* 《消费者信心报告》是美国环保总署要求，各供水企业每年度需要对所有用户发送的一份报告，其中包括了当年供水水质的详细情况。

America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–270) came with changes to infrastructure programs and other aspects of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Among these is Section 2008, which directs the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to make several modifications to the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). These changes include codifying electronic delivery, increasing the understandability of the reports, requiring biannual delivery for systems serving at least 10,000 people, and adding information about corrosion control (see the DC Beat article in April 2019 for more details on these requirements).

2018年版《美国水务基础设施法案（公共法115-270）》对基础设施计划和《安全饮用水法案》的一些方面进行了修改。其中第2008条规定，美国环境保护总署（USEPA）要对《消费者信心报告》（CCR）工作机制进行几处调整。这些调整的变化包括，编纂该报告的电子版并向公众发布；提高报告的可理解性；要求那些为至少10000人服务的水务系统每年发布两次该报告的电子版；同时，增加有关管网腐蚀控制的信息。

  USEPA was relatively quiet on the process of updating this rule until mid-2021. In August 2021, USEPA convened a CCR rule revision working group under the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) to discuss many of the potential changes and to make recommendations to USEPA on ways to implement them. In November 2021, the NDWAC working group completed a draft of its recommendations, which are divided into four charge questions, with a total of 29 consensus and three non-consensus recommendations. There are far too many to discuss them all here, but there are some highlights:

直到2021年年中为止，美国环境保护总署在响应这一调整的要求时表现的相对平静，并没有提出自己的相关建议。2021年8月，总署在国家饮用水咨询委员会（NDWAC）指导下召开了《消费者信心报告》工作机制修订工作小组会议，讨论了诸多潜在的变化。国家饮用水咨询委员会就如何落实这些变化向总署提出了建议。2021年11月，国家饮用水咨询委员会工作小组完成了建议草案，这些建议分为四个方面的问题，共有29项共识建议和3项非共识建议。这里可以讨论的内容太多，但有一些突出的亮点内容值得一提：

? It was felt that USEPA should “address accessibility through implementation guidance and support” (charge 1, recommendation 1), such as using internet accessibility standards for those with disabilities, ensuring that text is searchable, and including other strategies to support the function of assistive technologies for those reading the CCRs.

建议认为，总署应“通过实施指导和技术支持来解决残障人士可获取报告的问题”，例如，推行专为残障人士提供的无障碍标准的网络文本，确保文本可被残障人士方便搜索，并建议提供其他辅助技术措施，以帮助残障人士阅读《消费者信心报告》。

? There was considerable emphasis on translating the CCRs into other languages (charge 1, recommendations 3–6). Although it is unclear what requirement would change, recommendations included both using “certified translators” when there is a significant non-English speaking population within a service territory and ensuring that CCRs are posted in such a way that automated translation services will function optimally.

也有建议强调应将《消费者信心报告》译成其他语言。尽管对不同语言的需求可能是会变化的，但依然建议在一些有大量非英语人口存在的社区，应提供经认证的翻译版本，并且确保即便是采用自动翻译功能，也能提供较好翻译质量的《消费者信心报告》。

? The working group described that access to CCRs by renters and non-bill-paying customers needs improvement (charge 2, recommendation 2), with an example being sending postcards to addresses that do not receive a bill directly.

工作小组建议，对于租房者和无纸质账单支付（电子支付）的用户，也应该确保其能够收到《消费者信心报告》。例如，可以对不需要邮局水费账单的地址，寄送（包含《消费者信心报告》信息的）明信片。

? There was a recommendation for the use of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Clear Communication Index to help rewrite CCRs, including mandatory language to help improve the readability and clarity of the reports (charge 3, recommendation 4).

也有建议希望使用美国疾病控制和预防中心的“清晰沟通指数”来帮助重新编制《消费者信心报告》,包括采用一些强制性的语言以帮助提高该报告的可读性和清晰性。 

? The working group identified additional electronic delivery options that should be allowed, including the use of text messages (charge 4, recommendation 4).

工作小组还明确了《消费者信心报告》应当可以被允许以其他形式的电子版发布，包括使用短信的方式。  

Notably, the working group did not reach consensus on all issues discussed. For example, members were not able to agree on whether the currently used “CCR units”—which can differ from commonly used laboratory units—should be retained or eliminated (charge 3, non-consensus recommendation 1). Also, the members disagreed on the intent of the biannual delivery requirement, with some suggesting that it would require that the annual CCR be delivered twice per year, and others that the CCR would need to be split into two six-month CCRs (charge 4, non-consensus recommendation 1).

值得注意的是，工作小组并没有就所有讨论的问题都达成共识。例如，工作小组成员们无法就目前“《消费者信心报告》中所使用的单位（可能与常用的实验室中使用的单位不同）”应该予以保留还是取消达成一致。此外，成员们对“《消费者信心报告》一年应发布两次”这一要求的具体定义的理解也有分歧，其中一些人认为的事每年应该发布两次年度《消费者信心报告》，而另一些人则认为需要在同一年内发布两次各为期六个月的《消费者信心报告》。

The working group’s (and ultimately NDWAC’s) recommendations are only the first in a series of steps to develop this revised rule. USEPA will use the recommendations to help inform its rule development, but as we have seen in similar processes in the past, it is not a requirement to use the NDWAC’s recommendations, and USEPA may pick and choose some portions of the report in its rule design. It is important to note that the working group did not perform any analysis of the feasibility, costs and benefits, and other important aspects of its recommendations. There will be an engagement process, a proposed rule, a final rule, and a compliance schedule for any changes. At present, we expect a proposed rule by March 2023 and a final rule in March 2024, although that schedule may change.

工作小组（包括国家饮用水咨询委员会）的建议只是帮助修订《消费者信息报告》工作机制所需的一系列步骤中中的第一步。美国环境保护总署将在这些建议的帮助下制定相关的修订规则，但正如我们在过去类似流程中所看到的那样，国家饮用水咨询委员会的建议并不是强制性的，总署可以在《消费者信息报告》工作机制的修改中，挑选采用建议中的个别观点。值得注意的是，工作小组并没有对所提出的建议的可行性、成本和效益以及其他重要方面进行任何分析。后续的修编工作将有具体的一个参与过程，会形成一个待审议的草案初稿，一个最终的修编案定稿，以及一个能够配合任何变化情况调整的时间表。目前，预计在2023年3月前会形成一个待审议的草案初稿，2024年3月会形成一个最终的修编案定稿，尽管这个时间表还可能会调整。

It’s important to recognize that we are probably still several years away from new CCR requirements. However, that doesn’t mean that you can’t examine your CCR processes now to identify ways to better reach customers and streamline delivery (whether electronic or otherwise). If you haven’t yet considered electronic delivery, now may be the time to do so to be better prepared for biannual delivery requirements. Any analysis done now will only help to prepare for upcoming rule changes.

特别需要意识到的事，我们可能离全新要求的《消费者信心报告》还有几年的时间。然而，这并不意味着你现在不能通过审查《消费者信心报告》的发布流程，来选择如何更好地获取报告的方式（无论是以电子版方式还是其他方式）。如果你还没有考虑过通过电子版的方式获取，那么现在可能是可以好好考虑的时候了。这是为了更好迎接未来一年两次的发布要求做准备，对于修编过程的任何分析也将有助于为即将到来的《消费者信心报告》发布的工作机制规则变化做好准备。

来源：本文来自宛平南路600号楼长阿三，仅供分享交流不做商业用途，不代表净水技术观点，版权归原作者与原作者出处