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-OEM2014-0328 

Dear Mr. Belke, 

MunicipalH2O specializes in providing EPA Risk Management Program (RMP) and OSHA Process 

Safety Management (PSM) Compliance Services for water and wastewater facilities throughout 

the U. S. We provide a complete solution for all EPA/State RMP and PSM requirements, 

including prevention programs, hazard assessments, compliance audits and 

registrations/updates, RMP training and other services. We are responsible for the 

development of RMP documents and continued RMP compliance for more than 275 water and 

wastewater facilities in twenty-eight states and have completed more RMP registrations with 

EPA than anyone in the country. 

Background 

The water and wastewater industries in the United States have practiced continuous 

improvement for many years. Through efforts with trade organizations such as the American 

Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation, they have developed 

numerous codes and standards for the construction, operations and maintenance of their 

systems. The trade organizations have organized subchapters at the state and local levels where 

the management and operators meet regularly to share ideas and technology to better serve 

their customers, the public. 

Many water and wastewaters facilities use RMP and PSM 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 disinfect 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 use ammonia (either anhydrous or an aqueous 
liquid form) to provide a specific disinfection residual 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 to treatment. 

The Disinfection Process is not a complicated process. The water and wastewater industry has 

practiced analysis for Inherently Safer Technologies for many years and, as a result, the 

equipment and techniques used in the treatment process have become much safer. For 

example, most facilities feed the regulated chemicals 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 controlling the gas feed closes, or fails safe. 

Since working closely with water and wastewater facilities 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 facilities are operated by a handful of 

individuals, but they take their responsibilities very seriously. Supervision and operations 

personnel must be licensed by their respective states, which requires years of experience and 

formal training, and includes the Disinfection Process. 

We respectively request the Agency consider our comments 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 facilities. 

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: Risk Management Programs under 

the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7) Request for Information, 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 and 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 Clause. 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 replace an empty container when 

the second container weight is below 500 pounds; 

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

• Arrange with their supplier to partially fill two 2000 pound containers to 1200 

pounds each; 

• The 5000 pound TQ for sulfur dioxide allows a facility to have two 2000 pound 

containers and avoid RMP Registration. 

A primary concern is that facilities using 2000 pound containers may not conduct a Hazard 

Assessment of potential releases. The Worst Case Scenarios 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 impacts. 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 (1500 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 owners and operators of RMP-regulated 

facilities to use a third-party for compliance audits 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 required, special circumstances involving 

small entities, etc.)? 

• Should EPA revise § 68.58 and § 68.79 to require owners 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 audits and agree that third-party audits 

could help prevent accidental releases. We have found that many facilities simply do not 

understand the requirements of the RMP and PSM. Since 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 reviews 

• 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. However, 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 previously identified. A thorough compliance 

audit can serve as a training session for the facility. 

Concerning the credentials and certifications for auditors, the most important qualifications 

are experience, knowledge of the industry being audited, and understanding of the 

regulatory requirements. If professional certifications are required, there are several that 

may be useful, including a Certified Safety Professional or Associate Safety Professional.

RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Effects of OSHA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability 

• Do you operate a water or wastewater treatment plant that is subject to the RMP 

regulation? If so, what level of accident prevention requirements do you believe are 

warranted for such facilities? If you operate a Program 2 process at a water or wastewater 

treatment plant, how much additional burden would be involved in implementing the 

additional RMP elements required for Program 3 processes? 

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 disinfection 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 requirements should not be a significant burden for 

a facility complying with Program 2, though the additional requirements associated with 

Program 3 are unnecessary in our opinion. 

 
RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Effects of OSHA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability 

• Should RMP-covered municipal water and wastewater plants that are not eligible for 

Program 1 always be subject to RMP Program 3, regardless 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 eligible for Program 1. The Worst Case 

Scenario for a 2000 pound container will usually reach offsite receptors. As mentioned in 

earlier comments, we believe Program 2 works well for a water and wastewater disinfection 

process. 

RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Effects of OSHA PSM Coverage on RMP Applicability 

• Would eliminating Program level 2 simplify rule compliance for the regulated universe 

and improve human and environmental health and safety, or does the current threetiered prevention program framework under the RMP provide an appropriate level of 

protection? 

MunicipalH2O Comment 

We believe the three-tiered prevention program framework is appropriate, particularly for 

water and wastewater treatment facilities. 

RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Effects of OSHA 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 entities that EPA should consider with 

respect to modifying or eliminating Program 2? 

MunicipalH2O Comment 

The majority of Program 2 water and wastewater facilities are located in small to medium 

sized municipalities. They have limited staff and budgets. They already have a huge task 

keeping up with the infrastructure of their water and wastewater systems. Our experience 

shows that facilities following Program 2 requirements provide an appropriate level of 

protection. 

RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Safer Technology and Alternatives Analysis 

• Should EPA require a safer alternatives options analysis 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 industries have spent many years analyzing 

and considering Safer Technology and Alternatives. It is documented that switching from 

chlorine gas to sodium hypochlorite would reduce the potential for chlorine gas releases. 

Also, some wastewater facilities could switch to Ultra Violet (UV) for disinfection. While 

these process changes may provide some level of additional safety, the analysis performed 

by many facilities has shown that implementing these changes are very expensive and are 
cost prohibitive to their operation. If a new requirement 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 area. 

RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Automated Detection 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 monitoring? 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 are familiar with some facilities that do 

not have gas detection systems. Some municipal drinking water systems depend on 

groundwater with unmanned well sites and pumping stations 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 with Emergency Response Program 

Requirements in Coordination with Local Responders 

• Do you own or operate an RMP-regulated facility that relies on public authorities to 

respond to accidental releases of regulated substances 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 plan with the community emergency 

response plan? 

MunicipalH2O Comment 

Most water and wastewater facilities rely on the local public authorities for response to 

accidental releases. These facilities usually have employees that are trained and qualified to 

handle “incidental leaks” without assistance. We recommend 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 NAICS 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 would be a better indicator of a concern. 

RMP Potential Revision Consideration: Streamlining RMP Requirements 

• Should EPA require that RMP submissions be certified by a senior corporate official, such 

as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operations Officer, or the 

equivalent to ensure corporate-wide awareness and accountability 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 familiar with the day-to-day activities at the 

facility. That decision should belong to the facility.