P.O

.

B or. 400

L owell

AR 72745

Ph 479.756

. 3651

Fx 479.751.4356

a October

24

, 2014 Via Federal eRulemaking

Portal http

: //www

. regulations.gov OSWER

Docket,

EPA Docket

Center Mail

Code 2822-1

T Environmental

Protection

Agency 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue

NW Washington,

D.C. 20460 Attention

Docket

ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2014-0328

Beaver

Water District Re

: Risk Management

Program

, Accidental

Release Prevention Requirements Request

for Information

, Docket

ID

No

. EPA

- HQ-OEM-2014-0328 To Whom

It May Concern

: Beaver

Water District

(BWD) appreciates

this opportunity

to respond

to the

U.S

. E nvironmental Protection

Agency's

(EPA's)

Request

for Information

(RFI)

on potential

revisions

to the Risk Management

Program

(RMP) regulations

at 40

C

. F

. R. Part

68. BWD

is

a public drinking

water treatment

utility located

in Lowell, Arkansas

. We treat water

from Beaver

Lake,

a Corps

of Engineers

reservoir,

and supply drinking

water

to the Northwest

Arkansas

cities

of Fayetteville, Sp

r ingdale,

Rogers,

and Bentonville.

These

cities

then resell

the water

to more

than 300,000 p

e ople

and industries. Before responding

below

to some

of EPA

' s questions

in the RFI,

we first

note

that while

it

is important

for

the federal government

to explore

what

can

be done

to prevent chemical

accidents such

as that

at the West Fertiliz

e

r facility

, perhaps

such efforts

should

initially

be directed towards

technical

assistance

and other

steps

to ensure compliance

with

the

e x ist

i ng RMP regulations

.

In other

words

, any expansion

of

the RMP regulations

should

only

come

after noncompliance

issues

are addressed

or

, at least,

after

a determination

that

the existing regulations are inadequate

even

if properly implemented

. BWD

won't attempt

to respond

to

all

of the EPA's questions

in the RFI. Instead

we'll

focus

on some

of the

RFI questions

that directly

relate

to drinking

water treatment

facilities, particularly questions

regarding

whether

EPA

should

require

covered

facilities

to further

evaluate

or implement

inherently

safer technologies

(1ST)

and whether

water systems

curr

e ntly subject

to RMP program

level

2 should

instead

be subj

e ct

to program

level

3.

In general,

BWD

does

not believe

that

it

is appropriate

at this time

to

r equire drinking

water treatment

facilities

to conduct 1ST reviews.

We

also

do

not believe

that current program

level

2 drinking

water treatment facilities

should

be subject

to program

level

3 at this time

. BWD

' s responses

to specific questions

utilize

the section numbers

of EPA

' s requests

as publish

e d

at 79 Fed.

Reg. 44,604-44

, 633 (July

31, 2014).BeaverWaterDistrictPublicCommentsRequestforInformation,RiskManagementProgramDocketIDNo.EPA-HQ-OEM-2014--0328October24,2014Page21.ResponsetoSectionII.D.l.a,79Fed.Reg.44,621:ShouldEPArequireasaferalternativesoptionsanalysiseitherasanewpreventionprogramelement,aspartoftheexistingPlWHazardReviewelement,orasaseparatenewrequirementunderCAAsection112(r)?•Whileitmaybeappropriateandnotundulyburdensometosubjectcertaintypesofchemicalholdingfacilitiestoa"saferalternativesoptionsanalysis"(oftenreferredtoasISTreview),itisnotappropriatetorequiredrinkingwatertreatmentfacilitiestoconductISTreviewsorbesubjecttoISTimplementation.Therecanbenoacross-the-boardconsensusastowhatmethodsorprocesseswouldconstituteaninherentlysafertechnologyforaparticularwaterfacility.Whenevaluatingpotentialchangestodrinkingwatertreatmentchemicalsandprocesses,utilityexpertsmustconsideranumberoffactorsincluding:securityrisktradeoffs;localambientwaterquality;interactionswithco-occurringconstituents;generationofunintendedtreatmentbyproductsandtheresultingpublichealthimplications;supplychainreliability;fiscalandeconomicimpacts;andimplicationsforregulatorycompliancewithotherstatutessuchastheSafeDrinkingWaterAct(SDWA)andtheCleanWaterAct(CWA).Waterutilitieshavedemonstratedawillingnesstovoluntarilymakeappropriatechemicalsubstitutionswheredoingsoisbeneficial,feasible,anddoesnotinterferewiththeirprimaryresponsibilityofdeliveringcleanandsafedrinkingwatertothepublic.•CleanAirAct(CAA)section112(r)focusesonpreventingaccidentalchemicalreleasesandonsiteandoffsiteconsequences,and anyconsiderationofa"safer"chemicalalternativeorISTundersection112(r)wouldlikelybegearedtothisobjective.Awatertreatmentfacility,however,musttakeintoaccountnotonlythesafetyofthepopulationwithinthepotentialreleaseimpactarea,butalsothesafetyandpublichealthofwaterconsumerswhooftenarelocatedsignificantdistancesawayfromthewatertreatmentfacility.Thiscomplexanalysiscan'tbestandardizedanddependsuponalargenumberofvariablesuniquetoeachwaterfacility.Itisessentialthatlocalexpertsmakethischoicewithoutfederalmandatesthatfavorsubstancesthoughttobe"inherentlysafer"thanothers.Eachcommunityanddrinkingwatersystemisdifferent,sobroadchemicaluserestrictionscouldleadtoareductionofdrinkingwaterquality,highercostsforratepayers,andashiftingofriskthatfailstoimproveoverallsafety.•Section112(r)grantsEPAregulatoryauthorityoverafacility'sstorageofcoveredchemicals,butonlywhenthefacilitypossessesthechemicalinaquantitythatexceedsadefinedthresholdquantity.Aregulationbasedonsection112(r)aimedatreplacingacoveredchemicalwitha"safer"alternative,however,mightdrivesomewaterutilitiestojustreduceinventoriesbelowthethresholdamount.Thiscouldhavetheresultofincreasingrisks.Forexample,maintainingsmallerchemicalinventoriesthatwouldnotbesubjectto112(r)oversightwouldrequiremuchmorefrequentdeliveries,especiallyatlargerfacilities.Themorefrequentdeliveriesandassociatedloadingandunloadingprocessescouldresultinacumulativeincreaseinpublicsafetyrisks.DependenceuponmorefrequentdeliveriesalsoBeaverWaterDistrictPublicCommentsRequestforInformation,RiskManagementProgramDocketIDNo.EPA-HQ--OEM-2014--0328October24,2014Page3couldbemoresusceptibletosupplychaindisruptionsduringnormaloperations.Duringadisaster,supply-chaindisruptionscouldpreventdeliveries.Ifautilitydoesnothavethechemicalsnecessarytotreatwater,theriskstopublichealthmultiplyexponentially.2.ResponsetoSectionJI.D.l.d,79Fed.Reg.44,621:CantheRMPnationaldatabase,LessonsLearnedIriformationSystemorotherfederaldatabasesbestructuredtopromotetheexchangeofinformationbothwithinindustryandwithotherstakeholdersonpotentiallysafertechnologies?•ForreasonssetforthinResponse1above,BWDdoesnotbelieveitisappropriatetomandatethatwatertreatmentfacilities undertake1STreview.Forthosefacilitiesvoluntarilyconductingapotentiallysafertechnologyanalysis,however,itmaybeworthconsideringhowneworexistingfederalinformationsharingdatabasescouldserveasavenuesforutilityprofessionalsandotherexpertstoshareinformationregardingtheevaluationandimplementationofalternativeprocesses.Thedifficulty willbeensuringthatanyinformationsharingvehicleisadequatelyshieldedfrompublicdisclosure,butalsoreadilyaccessibletoauthorizedwaterutilityprofessionals.Ultimately,waterutilitymanagersmay bereluctanttopostfacility-specificinformationforfearofunauthorizeddisclosure,thoughtheymaybewillingtobelistedaspointsofpersonalcontact.3.ResponsetoSectionJJ.D.l.g,79Fed.Reg.44,622:HowshouldEPAandfacilitiesaddresstherisktradeofftthatcouldresultwhenchangingaprocesstoincorporatesaferalternatives?•Again,forreasonssetforthinResponseIabove,wedonotbelieveitisappropriatetorequirewatertreatmentfacilitiestoundertake1STrevieworimplementation.Suchdecisionsmustbemadebylocalofficialswhoarefamiliarwiththeneedsandinfrastructureoftheirowncommunities,ratherthanbydistantfederalofficialswhodonothavethebenefitofthislocalknowledge.Toillustratethecomplexityofthisanalysis,however,someoftheriskstothepublictobetakenintoconsiderationwhenawaterutility considersachangefromgaseouschlorinedisinfectioninclude:thepotentialforincreasedlevelsofcontaminantssuchasperchlorateinthetreatedwater,creationofnewbyproductsthatrequireproperdisposal,theeffectsofthereplacementchemicalsonthefacility'swastewater,possibleaccidentsandspillsrelatedtomorefrequentshipmentsanddeliveriesofreplacementchemicals,supplychainbreakdownsthatcouldleaveautility unabletoadequatelytreatwater,andhighercapitalandoperationalcosts.4.ResponsetoSectionILD.l.i,79Fed.Reg.44,622:IfEPAweretodevelopregulatoryrequirementsforsaferalternatives,whichfacilitiesshouldbesubjecttothoserequirements?ShouldallRMPfacilitiesbesubjecttosuchrequirements,oronly"highrisk"facilities,suchasrefineriesandlargechemicalplants?•Whileitmaybeappropriateandnotundulyburdensometosubjectrefineriesandlargechemicalplantsto1STreviewandimplementationrequirements,itisnotappropriatetoapplyBeaverWaterDistrictPublicCommentsRequestforInformation,RiskManagementProgramDocketIDNo.EPA-HQ-OEM-2014--0328October24,2014Page4thoserequirementstodrinkingwatertreatmentsystemsdueto,amongotherthings,theiruniqueroleaspublichealthstewards.Drinkingwaterutilitesselectthemostappropriatewatertreatmentmethodsbasedonavarietyoffactors,but,mostimportantly,whichchemicalmosteffectivelywillmakewatersafeforpublicconsumptionandachievecompliancewiththerequirementsoftheSDWA.Afederalregulatoryprogramthatoverridestheselocaldecisions-withafocusonminimizingchemicalreleasesandonsiteandoffsiteconsequences,ratherthanonensuringtheappropriatetreatmentandsafetyofdrinkingwater-couldleadtoinadequatelytreatedwaterandjeopardizepublichealth.5.ResponsetoSectionILD.l.j,79Fed.Reg.44,622:Whatbarriersexistforindustrytoadoptsaferalternatives?Whatincentivescanbeusedbygovernmenttohavefacilitiesimplementsaferalternatives?ShouldtheAgencyprovidespecialrecognitiontocompaniesthatimplementsaferalternatives?•Federalfinancialassistancetooffsetcostsincurredbywaterutilitiesthathaveindependentlyandvoluntarilydecidedtoexploreoradoptanalternatetreatmentchemicalcouldbehelpful.Wewonder,however,ifthatisrealistictoexpect.Ingeneral,though,it'sprobablyinadvisableforthefederalgovernmenttootherwiseincentivizeorrecognizetheadoptionof1STbywatersystems.Incentivizingorpubliclyrecognizing1STadoptioncouldimplythatconversiontoan1STisbydefaulttheappropriateconclusiontoreach,eventhoughitmaynotbeinthebestdecisionintermsofoverallpublichealth.6.ResponsetoSectionILD.l.k,79Fed.Reg.44,622:Whatareotheroptions(otherthanregulatoryrequirements)exist[sic]toencouragefacilitiestoinvestigate,developorimplementsaferalternativesandhowcanEPAforthertheseefforts?•Asnotedinresponse2above,EPAcouldfacilitateinformationsharingamongwaterutilityprofessionals,butmustdosounderconditionsthataresecurewhilealsobeingaccessibletoappropriateindividuals.7.ResponsetoSectionII.D.l.l,79Fed.Reg.44,622:IfRMPfacilitiesarerequiredtoperformsaferalternativeoptionsanalysesandimplementationplans,shouldEPArequirethattheanalysesand/orimplementationplansbesubmittedtotheAgency?ShouldEPAhaveanyroleinapprovingsuchanalysesorplans?•Again,BWDdoesnotbelievethatrequiring1STreviewsorimplementationisappropriateforwatertreatmentutilities.ItfollowsthatsuchanalysesandimplementationplansshouldnotbesubmittedtoEPAforrevieworapprovalbecauseoftheuniquelylocaldecisionmakingandpublichealthconsiderationsinvolved.WealsohavepracticalconcernsaboutthecollectionandstoragebyEPAofsuchdocuments,which,ifdisclosed,wouldpresentsignificantsecurityconcerns.Intheeventthat1STrelateddocumentseveraretobesharedbywaterutilitieswithEPA,rulesmustfirstbeputinplacetoguaranteethedocumentsareprotectedfromdisclosureeitherinadvertentlyorunderthefederalFreedomofInformationBeaverWaterDistrictPublicCommentsRequestforInformation,RiskManagementProgramDocketIDNo.EPA-HQ--OEM-2014--0328October24,2014Page5Act(FOIA)oranycorrespondingstateorlocalstatutes.8.ResponsetoSectionII.D.l.m,79Fed.Reg.44,622:IfRMPfacilitiesarerequiredtoconsidersaferalternativeoptions,whatroleshouldlocalcommunitieshaveintheseanalyses?Shouldfacilitiesberequiredtodisclosetheseanalysesorrecommendationsresultingfromsuchanalysestolocalauthoritiesorthepublicpriortotheselectionofoptions?•JustasISTreviewandimplementationshouldnotberequiredforwatertreatmentutilities,disclosuretoandparticipationbylocalcommunitiesshouldnotbefederallymandated.Waterutilitydecisionsofteninvolvelocalparticipation,butitisdoneinwaysthatareuniqueandappropriatetothewaterutility,itscustomers,andthelocalcommunities.Whatisnotneededisafederalprogramthatdictatesthetermsunderwhichwaterutilitiesandlocalcommunitiesengageonwatertreatmentoptions.9.ResponsetoSectionII.C.7.c,79Fed.Reg.44,620:ShouldRMP-coveredmunicipalwaterandwastewaterplantsthatarenoteligibleforProgram1alwaysbesubjecttoRMPProgram3,regardlessofwhetherornottheyarelocatedinastatewithaFederally-delegatedOSHAprogram?Whyorwhynot?•EPAshouldnotchangetheexistingregulationsandpracticeregardingtheplacementofdrinkingwaterfacilitiesinanappropriateprogramlevel.Currently,waterutilitiesthataresubjecttotheRMPregulationmustmeettherequirementsofeitherProgram2orProgram3dependingonwhethertheirstatehasadelegatedOSHAprogram.Publicutilities,includingdrinkingwaterutilities,instatesthatdonothavefederally-delegated,state-runOSHAprograms(suchasArkansas)generallyfallintoProgram2.Utilitiesinstateswithfederallydelegated,state-runOSHAprogramsareclassifiedinProgram3.•Program2representsanappropriatelevelofaccidentpreventionrequirementsfordrinkingwatersystems.AccordingtoEPA'sRMPGuidance,Program2embodiesthebasicsofsoundpreventionpractices(safetyinformation,hazardreview,operatingprocedures,training,maintenance,complianceaudits,andincidentinvestigation).AlsoaccordingtoEPA,Program2requiressubstantiallylessdocumentationandrecordkeepingresponsibilitiesthanProgram3.•Publicutilitiesinstateswithfederally-delegated,state-runOSHAprogramsoriginallywereputinProgram3toavoidduplicativereportingandrecordkeepingrequirements-notbecauseofanyexpectedsafetyenhancementduetoaProgram3classification.Itwouldbeinappropriateandwoulddelivernomeasurablesafetybenefittoimposenewadministrativeburdensonthenation'sLevel2drinkingwaterfacilitiesprimarilyforthesakeofhavingallsuchfacilitiesinthe sameprogramlevel.BeaverWaterDistrictPublicCommentsRequestforInformation,RiskManagementProgramDocketIDNo.EPA-HQ-OEM-2014-{)328October24,2014Page610.ResponsetoSectionII.D.10.a,79Fed.Reg.44,631:ShouldindustrysectorsrepresentedinRMPdataasthosewiththemostaccidentalreleasesbeusedtoupdateandreplacetheexistingsetofProgram3NAICScodeswithanewset?•Theabsolutenumberofaccidentalreleasesisnotnecessarilyametricthataccuratelyreflectstherisksposedbyanindustrysector.Theabsolutenumberofaccidentalreleasesisbiasedbytheoverallnumberoffacilitiesinasectoranddoesnottakeintoaccounttherelativeseverityandcorrespondingriskposedbyanyreleases.EPAnotesthat,basedonnearlytwodecadesofaccidenthistoryreportsintheRMPnationaldatabase,NorthAmericanIndustryClassificationCode(NAICS)22131for11Watersupplyandirrigationsystems11isoneofthe tenNAICScodesmostfrequentlyassociatedwithaccidentsinRMP-regulatedprocesses.TheRMPdatabaseoftheaccidenthistoryreportsisnolongerpubliclyavailable,soit'snotpossibleforBWDtocriticallyevaluatethisclaim.Basedonourknowledgeofthedrinkingwatersector,however,webelievethatanyelevatedabsolutenumberofaccidentsat"WaterSupplyandIrrigationSystems"issimplyafunctionofthelargenumberofsuchfacilitiesnationwide.Wedonotbelievethatthesefacilitiesexperienceaccidentsatelevatedfrequenciesorseveritiesnecessitatingspecialscrutiny.It,therefore,wouldbeinappropriatetoautomaticallyassignNAICScode22131drinkingwaterfacilitiestoProgram3.11.ResponsetoSectionII.D.B.a,79Fed.Reg.44,628:ShouldEPAamendtheRMPregulationtorequireRMP-regulatedfacilitiestopostchemicalhazard-relatediriformationontheirwebsites...?•Drinkingwaterfacilitiesshouldnotberequiredtopostthisinformationontheinternet.Publicreleaseofchemicalinventoryandstoragelocationinformationcouldseriouslycompromisethesecurityofadrinkingwaterfacilityandincreasetheterrorism-relatedriskstothelocalcommunity.ItwouldhavetheneteffectofunderminingEPA'sgoalofreducingchemicalreleaserisksatthe sametimeasitjeopardizesthecommunity'sdrinkingwatersupply.12.ResponsetoSectionILD.B.e,79Fed.Reg.44,628:Isthereotherinformation(web-basedorotherwise)thatwouldassistlocalcommunities,emergencyplanners,andrespondersinunderstandingfacilityrisksthat shouldbemadepubliclyavailable?•UnderCAAsection112(r)andEmergencyPlanningandCommunityRight-to-KnowAct(EPCRA)sections301-303,coveredwatertreatmentfacilitiesalreadyprovideRMPinformationwithlocalfirstrespondersandemergencyplanners.Again,thisinformationshouldnotbemadepubliclyavailableacross-the-board.Ifthere'saneedtoimproveinformationsharingbetweenlocalfirstrespondersandemergencyplanners,EPAcouldconducteducationaloutreachandprovidetechnicalassistance,includingcustomizablematerials,totherelevantlocalentities.BeaverWaterDistrictPublicCommentsRequestforInformation,RiskManagementProgramDocketIDNo.EPA-HQ--OEM-2014-0328October24,2014Page7ThankyouforyourconsiderationofBeaverWaterDistrict'scomments.Ccviaemail:SenatorJohnBoozmanSenatorMarkPryorRepresentativeSteveWomackBWDBoardPresidentBillWatkinsBWDCEOAlanFortenberryBWDPlantManagerBillHagenBurgeroyd,P.E.peratingOfficer