Here’s one you don’t see every day: 1) a state university needing an RMP for its power generation plant’s SCR, 2) the SCR uses 29% aqua ammonia rather than anhydrous ammonia, and 3) they exceeded the doubled TQ for Aqua Ammonia > 20% of 20,000 pounds.
Respondent is part of a State University system and owns and operates a Combined Power and Heat Plant. Respondent uses aqueous ammonia as the reduction reagent in the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system used to control nitrogen oxide emissions from the 9.6-megawatt diesel-fired generator located adjacent to the facility. The aqueous ammonia is stored in vessels that are connected by piping to the SCR system. The vessels storing aqueous ammonia, the SCR system, and the related piping constitute a single process under 40 C.F.R. § 68.3 (hereinafter “Aqueous Ammonia Process”). More than 20.000 pounds of 29% aqueous ammonia solution was present in Respondent’s Aqueous Ammonia Process from at least December 16, 2014, through October 7, 2016. Here are the facts as stated in the CAFO:
Respondent’s Aqueous Ammonia Process is a Program 2 covered process, as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 68.10(g) because it is not subject to either the Program 1 or Program 3 requirements.
Respondent was required to submit and have in place an RMP for the facility from at least December 16, 2014, through October 7, 2016. Respondent had not submitted to EPA an RMP by December 16, 2014, or at any time through October 7, 2016, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.12(a) and (c) and 68.150.
During the time period from December 16, 2014, through October 7, 2016, Respondent did not develop and implement a management system to oversee the implementation of the risk management program elements, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.15.
During the time period from December 16, 2014, through October 7, 2016, Respondent did not prepare an offsite consequence analysis-including a worst-case release
scenario and an alternative release scenario, defining the offsite population and environmental impacts-for its Aqueous Ammonia Process, as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 68.20 through 68.36.
During the time period from December 16, 2014, through October 7, 2016, Respondent failed to conduct a hazard review for its Aqueous Ammonia Process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.50.
During the time period from December 16, 2014, through October 7, 2016, Respondent failed to ensure that refresher training was provided to each employee involved in operating its Aqueous Ammonia Process and that each employee operating the process understood and adhered to the current operating procedures of the process, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.54(b).
During the time period from December 16, 2014, through October 7, 2016, Respondent failed to train or cause to be trained each employee involved in maintaining the ongoing mechanical integrity of its Aqueous Ammonia Process, as required by 40 C.F .R. § 68.56(b).
During the time period from December 16, 2014, through October 7, 2016, Respondent failed to fully develop and implement the emergency response program provided for in 40 C.F.R. § 68.95 by failing to include procedures for informing the appropriate state and local emergency agencies about accidental releases, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 68.95(a)(1)(i).
Respondent, therefore, violated Section 112(r) of the CAA and the implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
After considering these factors, EPA has determined, and Respondent agrees, that an appropriate penalty to settle this action is $74,051 (the “Assessed Penalty”).
CLICK HERE for the CAFO