Document EOk6DODj4EjeV5GQEnvmpn04

To: Hupp, Sydney[hupp.sydney@epa.gov] Cc: judd_gardner@moran.senate.gov[judd_gardner@moran.senate.gov]; mike zamrzia@moran.senate.govfmike zamrzla@moran.senate.gov]; Ed Crossfi Personal Emaii/Ex. 6 J From: Robert Krehbiel Sent: Thur 4/27/2017 6:31:58 PM Subject: Request for meeting with EPA Administrator Pruitt regarding water supply of the City of Pretty Prairie, Kansas. Sydney: Please see the attached description of the subject of the requested meeting. Best regards, Robert E. Krehbiel CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to robert.krehbiel@vahoo.com or by telephone (620) 899-3092. Please also destroy the original transmission and its attachments. Thank you. 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00004133-00001 To: Sydney Hupp, Scheduler for EPA Administrator Mike Pruitt My name is Robert Krehbiel. I live in Pretty Prairie, Kansas, a small town of 300 households. The quality of the cities' water supply which comes from local water wells is generally excellent. The water is tested quarterly and complies with the EPA water quality standards in every respect, with the exception of the EPA standard for nitrates. The city desires to provide safe drinking water to every citizen. The EPA standard for nitrates in drinking water has been set to not exceed 10 parts per million. The nitrate level in the town's water supply has varied from as low as 3.6 parts per million to 23.0 parts per million over the years. The EPA suggests that when nitrate levels exceed 10 parts per million in our drinking water it poses a risk of cyanosis (blue baby syndrome) to infants less than six months of age and to pregnant women. To address this risk the city provides quarterly notice of the latest test of the nitrate level to every household and explains the risk cited by the EPA. The notice includes an offer of free bottled water to any household requesting it. The cities' approach to the issue has proven to be successful. There have been no issues of any kind resulting from the consumption of the cities' water. Now, however, the EPA is requiring the City to install a reverse osmosis plant to maintain the nitrate level in the cities' water supply at 10 parts per million or less. The EPA will require the city to treat 100 per cent of the water supply including water used to shower, to wash clothes, to flush stools, to water lawns and the football field, to wash cars....etc. In other words, there is no apparent reason to treat 99.99% of the water supply. The estimated cost of the EPA's proposal is $2.4 million. That cost will be added to the water bill attached to 300 households. That is $8,000 per household plus interest. This is not a wealthy community. Any threat to the health of infants and pregnant women could be easily and economically addressed by providing bottled water or point of use treatment. City officials have been providing bottled water to date and they have made it clear to the EPA that they will provide point of use treatment upon request or as needed. This, however, has not been acceptable to those negotiating on behalf of the EPA. The source of the nitrates in the cities' water supply has been the subject of considerable study. Although not definitive, there seems to be agreement among those knowledgeable that the primary source of nitrates is the leaching of agricultural fertilizer from nearby irrigated and non-irrigated fields into the water supply. The range of 3.6 to 23.0 ppm would appear to support this opinion. This being a farming community, however, there is no desire on the part of city council to stop the practice of fertilizing. Nevertheless, it is becoming more and more difficult to justify the continued practice if it allows nitrates to seep into the water supply and then requires city dwellers to pay the cost of taking the nitrates back out. This makes an economical solution even more pressing for farming communities. Mr. Ed Cross, President of the Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association and Senator Jerry Moran's Office were kind enough to provide me with your contact information. I would like to visit with Mr. Pruitt about a more practical approach to resolving the issue at hand while protecting the health and welfare of the citizenry. If it is possible to schedule an appointment in DC or elsewhere I will be available to meet with Mr. Pruitt at his convenience. Robert E. Krehbiel, 23805 South Dean Road, Pretty Prairie, KS 67570. Cell Phone: 620-899-3092 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00004134-00001 17cv1906 Sierra Club v. EPA ED_001523B_00004134-00002