One Financial Centre 650 S. Shackleford Rd, Suite 325 Little Rock, AR 72211-3546
Phone: 800-897-9425 FAX: 501-537-7778

October 28, 2014

Mr. James Belke U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency Management 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20460 belke.jim@epa.gov

**RE: EPA Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs**  **under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7) Request for Information, EPA-HQ-OEM** 

**2014-0328**

Dear Mr. Belke, MunicipalH2O specializes in providing EPA Risk Mana gement Program (RMP) and OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) Compliance Services for wat er and wastewater facilities throughout the U. S. We provide a complete solution for all E PA/State RMP and PSM requirements, including prevention programs, hazard assessments, compliance audits and registrations/updates, RMP training and other servi ces. We are responsible for the development of RMP documents and continued RMP comp liance for more than 275 water and wastewater facilities in twenty-eight states and ha ve completed more RMP registrations with EPA than anyone in the country.

**Background**
The water and wastewater industries in the United S tates have practiced continuous improvement for many years. Through efforts with tr ade organizations such as the American
Water Works Association and the Water Environment F ederation, they have developed numerous codes and standards for the construction, operations and maintenance of their systems. The trade organizations have organized su bchapters at the state and local levels where the management and operators meet regularly to shar e ideas and technology to better serve their customers, the public.

Many water and wastewaters facilities use RMP and P SM regulated chemicals in the Disinfection Process of treated water, the final, but vital part of the treatment that protects the health of the public. Wastewater facilities use chlorine to disi nfect the treated water and often utilize sulfur dioxide to remove the chlorine prior to release to the receiving stream. Drinking water facilities use chlorine for final disinfection and typically u se ammonia (either anhydrous or an aqueousliquid form) to provide a specific disinfection res idual in the water prior to distribution. Some

drinking water systems pretreat the raw water with chlorine or chlorine dioxide to oxidize organic compounds and remove microorganisms prior t o treatment.

The Disinfection Process is not a complicated proce ss. The water and wastewater industry has practiced analysis for Inherently Safer Technologie s for many years and, as a result, the equipment and techniques used in the treatment proc ess have become much safer. For example, most facilities feed the regulated chemica ls using a vacuum feed system. The vacuum is formed at the point of injection by the flow of treated water. If the flow of water stops, or there is a break in the feed line, the regulator co ntrolling the gas feed closes, or fails safe.

Since working closely with water and wastewater fac ilities for over 15 years, we have learned firsthand that facility operators already know how to operate safely, but need assistance in meeting all requirements of RMP and PSM. Many faci lities are operated by a handful of individuals, but they take their responsibilities v ery seriously. Supervision and operations personnel must be licensed by their respective stat es, which requires years of experience and formal training, and includes the Disinfection Proc ess.

We respectively request the Agency consider our com ments and recommendations for the proposed changes to Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7 ). We focus our comments on the potential impacts of these changes on water and wastewater fa cilities.

These comments and recommendations are based solely on our experience and do not represent the opinions of any municipal utility or industry organization.

Sincerely,

Gregory Rogers CSP VP Regulatory Compliance MunicipalH2o.com grogers@municipalh2o.com

### MunicipalH2O Comments

**on EPA Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Ris**  **k Management Programs under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7) Request for In**  **formation, EPA-HQ-OEM-2014-0328**

**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Lowering the Threshold Quantity for Substances**  **Currently on the List**

• **Are the current TQs protective of human health and the environment, or are there**  **certain substances for which the TQ is too high? If so, which substances?** 

• **For such substances, what TQ should EPA establish a nd what would it be based on?** 

**MunicipalH2O Comment** We have found that the current RMP TQs for chlorine (2500 pounds) and sulfur dioxide (5000 pounds) have created an opportunity for some facilities to operate below the threshold to avoid RMP Registration. In addition, many of the facilities operating below the TQ may not be complying with the General Duty Claus e. We are aware of facilities that employ the following practices to remain below the TQ and avoid RMP registration:

• Use chlorine in two 2000 pound containers that repl ace an empty container when the second container weight is below 500 pounds;

• Use one 2000 pound container and two 150 pound back up cylinders of chlorine;

• Arrange with their supplier to partially fill two 2 000 pound containers to 1200 pounds each;

• The 5000 pound TQ for sulfur dioxide allows a facil ity to have two 2000 pound containers and avoid RMP Registration.

A primary concern is that facilities using 2000 pou nd containers may not conduct a Hazard Assessment of potential releases. The Worst Case S cenarios in these situations would be the same as for an RMP covered facility using 2000 pound containers; and a 1200 pound release of chlorine would certainly have off-site i mpacts. In addition, the local emergency agencies may not have the information needed in the event of a release from these
facilities.

We recommend using the OSHA PSM TQs for chlorine (1 500 pounds) and sulfur dioxide (1000 pounds) to eliminate this practice.

**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Require Third -Party Compliance Audits** 

• **Would revising § 68.58 and § 68.79 to require owner s and operators of RMP-regulated**  **facilities to use a third-party for compliance audi ts help prevent accidental releases?**  **What would be the economic impacts of revising § 68 .58and § 68.79 in this way (e.g.,**  **typical consultant fees, additional work hours requ ired, special circumstances involving**  **small entities, etc.)?**

• **Should EPA revise § 68.58 and § 68.79 to require ow ners and operators to use**  **compliance auditors (internal or third-party) with certain minimum credentials or** **certifications? If so, what minimum credentials or certifications should the Agency**  **require? MunicipalH2O Comment**  We have conducted many third-party compliance audit s and agree that third-party audits could help prevent accidental releases. We have fo und that many facilities simply do not understand the requirements of the RMP and PSM. Si nce a compliance audit is focused on the Prevention Program elements, when conducting a compliance audit for a facility, we often find the following issues:

• inadequate process safety information

• inadequate process hazard analysis or hazard review s

• inadequate operating procedures

• inadequate operating procedures training,

• inadequate preventive maintenance practices, AND

• inadequate compliance audits.

Of these issues, inadequate process hazard analysis or hazard review and preventive maintenance present the biggest area of concern. H owever, we have found when we conduct a follow-up compliance audit on a facility where we previously identified the issues mentioned above, the facility does very well after gaining an understanding of the requirements and correcting the deficiencies previo usly identified. A thorough compliance audit can serve as a training session for the facil ity.

Concerning the credentials and certifications for a uditors, the most important qualifications are experience, knowledge of the industry being aud ited, and understanding of the regulatory requirements. If professional certifica tions are required, there are several that may be useful, including a Certified Safety Profess ional or Associate Safety Professional.

**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Effects of OS HA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability** 

• **Do you operate a water or wastewater treatment plan t that is subject to the RMP**  **regulation? If so, what level of accident preventio n requirements do you believe are**  **warranted for such facilities? If you operate a Pro gram 2 process at a water or wastewater**  **treatment plant, how much additional burden would b e involved in implementing the**  **additional RMP elements required for Program 3 proc esses?** 

**MunicipalH2O Comment** We are familiar with water and wastewater facility operations in many states. The Program 2 process requirements are more than adequate for a d isinfection process. As mentioned earlier, disinfection is not a complicated process and Program 2 addresses the important requirements to ensure safe operation.

However, adding the additional Program 3 requiremen ts should not be a significant burden for a facility complying with Program 2, though the add itional requirements associated with Program 3 are unnecessary in our opinion.**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Effects of OS HA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability** 

• **Should RMP-covered municipal water and wastewater p lants that are not eligible for**  **Program 1 always be subject to RMP Program 3, regar dless of whether or not they are**  **located in a state with a Federally-delegated OSHA program? Why or why not?** 

**MunicipalH2O Comment** We have not found a water or wastewater facility el igible for Program 1. The Worst Case Scenario for a 2000 pound container will usually re ach offsite receptors. As mentioned in earlier comments, we believe Program 2 works well f or a water and wastewater disinfection

process.

**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Effects of OS HA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability** 

• **Would eliminating Program level 2 simplify rule com pliance for the regulated universe**  **and improve human and environmental health and safe ty, or does the current three**  **tiered prevention program framework under the RMP p rovide an appropriate level of**  **protection?**

**MunicipalH2O Comment** We believe the three-tiered prevention program fram ework is appropriate, particularly for
water and wastewater treatment facilities.

**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Effects of OS HA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability** 

• **What would be the economic impacts of modifying or eliminating Program level 2? Are**  **there any special circumstances involving small ent ities that EPA should consider with**  **respect to modifying or eliminating Program 2?**

**MunicipalH2O Comment** The majority of Program 2 water and wastewater faci lities are located in small to medium sized municipalities. They have limited staff and b udgets. They already have a huge task keeping up with the infrastructure of their water a nd wastewater systems. Our experience shows that facilities following Program 2 requireme nts provide an appropriate level of protection.

**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Safer Technol ogy and Alternatives Analysis** 

• **Should EPA require a safer alternatives options ana lysis either as a new prevention**  **program element, as part of the existing PHA/Hazard Review element, or as a separate**  **new requirement under CAA section 112(r)?**

**MunicipalH2O Comment** As mentioned earlier, the water and wastewater indu stries have spent many years analyzing and considering Safer Technology and Alternatives. It is documented that switching from chlorine gas to sodium hypochlorite would reduce th e potential for chlorine gas releases. Also, some wastewater facilities could switch to Ul tra Violet (UV) for disinfection. While these process changes may provide some level of add itional safety, the analysis performed by many facilities has shown that implementing thes e changes are very expensive and arecost prohibitive to their operation. If a new requ irement is placed on RMP-regulated water

and wastewater facilities to perform an analysis of safer technologies and alternatives, those facilities that have previously completed an analysis of safer technologies and alternatives for their operation should be allowed to utilize their already completed analysis and be exempt from any future requirement in this a rea.

**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Automated Det ection and Monitoring for Releases of**  **Regulated Substances**

• **Should facilities be required to install monitoring equipment or sensors to detect releases**  **of RMP regulated substances, or the conditions that could lead to such a release? Should**  **the systems provide for continuous detection and mo nitoring? How should any such**  **requirements be crafted to provide appropriate site -specific flexibility?** 

**MunicipalH2O Comment**
Most water and wastewater treatment facilities have gas detection systems in place. However, during process hazard analysis and hazard reviews, it is common to find these systems may not be maintained properly. Also, we a re familiar with some facilities that do not have gas detection systems. Some municipal dri nking water systems depend on groundwater with unmanned well sites and pumping st ations scattered around the community. Some of these have no gas detection. We agree gas detection systems should be required, when applicable.

**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Compliance wi th Emergency Response Program**  **Requirements in Coordination with Local Responders**

• **Do you own or operate an RMP-regulated facility tha t relies on public authorities to**  **respond to accidental releases of regulated substan ces at the facility? What steps do you**  **take to ensure that public responders are prepared to properly respond to accidental**  **releases at your facility? Should EPA clarify what steps RMP facilities should take in order**  **to properly coordinate their emergency response pla n with the community emergency**  **response plan?**

**MunicipalH2O Comment** Most water and wastewater facilities rely on the lo cal public authorities for response to accidental releases. These facilities usually have employees that are trained and qualified to
handle “incidental leaks” without assistance. We r ecommend facilities formally meet with the local public agencies to discuss the facility’s emergency capabilities, review the results of the Hazard Assessment, and tour the facility.**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Program 3 NAI CS Codes Based on RMP Accident** 

**History Data**

• **Should industry sectors represented in RMP data as those with the most accidental**  **releases be used to update and replace the existing set of Program 3 NAICS codes with a** 
**new set?**

**MunicipalH2O Comment**
We don’t believe the number of accidents should be the criteria for requiring Program 3. The basis should be frequency rate per NAICS code. The water and wastewater industry makes up a large percentage of the RMPs on file and may have a higher number of accidents reported. However, the higher frequency rates woul d be a better indicator of a concern.

**RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Streamlining RMP Requirements** 

• **Should EPA require that RMP submissions be certifie d by a senior corporate official, such**  **as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Off icer, Chief Operations Officer, or the**  **equivalent to ensure corporate-wide awareness and a ccountability in the RMP** 
**submission?**

**MunicipalH2O Comment** The structure of municipal governments is different in nearly every community. We believe the Certifying Official should be an individual fam iliar with the day-to-day activities at the facility. That decision should belong to the facili ty.