ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case arises from a Request for Contested Case Hearing filed by Southeastern Chemical and Solvent Company
(hereinafter "SEC") as a result of the issuance by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(hereinafter "the Department") of Administrative Order 01-23-HW against SEC. Since the issuance and appeal of the
Administrative Order, the parties have been attempting to negotiate a resolution of issues raised by a Department
inspection on March 6, 2001, and subsequent Notice of Violation. This Consent Order of Dismissal shall resolve the
appeal of Administrative Order 01-23-HW and the matters alleged in the Notice of Violation relating to the March 6, 2001,
inspection.
The parties have agreed, without the adjudication of any issues of law or fact, to resolve these matters in this Consent
Order. The recitations contained herein are made solely for the purpose of settling a disputed matter, and neither the
Findings of Fact nor Conclusions of Law shall be deemed admissions of fact or law in any subsequent proceeding except
as necessary for enforcement of this Order or subsequent actions by the Department pursuant to the Department's Uniform
Enforcement Policy for the office of EQC.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On August 10, 2000, at approximately 6:45 a.m., a fire occurred in SA-5. According to SEC, the most probable cause of
the fire was a drum of furniture waste (lacquer dust and related materials) that spontaneously combusted. The fire spread
to other containers of furniture waste as well as other containers of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The fire
destroyed part of the building, including a portion of the roof, treatment and processing capabilities, and the duct system
leading to the emissions control unit. Approximately one hundred seventy five (175) drums and seven (7) roll-off
containers of hazardous waste were affected by the fire. The fire also resulted in the discharge of fire-fighting foam and
water into a retention pond and from there through a drainage ditch into a nearby creek.
2. SEC verbally reported the incident to the Department on August 10, 2000, and submitted an incident report on August
24, 2000. However, the name and quantity of all materials involved in the fire as well as an assessment of actual or
potential hazards were not included in the incident report. Additionally, there was no mention of the rolloff containers
involved or the water and fire-fighting foam that entered the nearby creek.
3. On August 23, 2000, representatives of the Department conducted an inspection of SEC. During the inspection,
Department personnel observed the following:
A. Liquid was observed on the floor in SA-6 that appeared to have been spilled during sampling from two drums
marked as containing hazardous waste.
B. A front-end loader contaminated with residue from SA-5 was parked on the ground in the solid waste facility. In
addition, adjacent to the front-end loader was a pile of debris that contained, among other things, cement blocks from
areas of the facility including SA-5 and SA-6.
C. Two drums stored in SA-5 were not labeled with EPA hazardous waste numbers.
D. In the blended fuel storage area, tanks BP2 and BP3 were stained with waste that appeared to have leaked out of the
top of tank BP3. Facility personnel had not yet performed the daily inspection. A patched area at the top of tank BP3
had apparently failed and caused the waste to be released from the top of the tank. There were several patched areas on
the top of tank BP3, along with pitting and some small holes.
E. Tank BP3 was taken out of service during the DHEC inspection, repaired by SEC, and put back into service. Prior
to returning the tank to service, SEC did not obtain certification from an independent qualified, registered professional
engineer that the repaired tank is capable of handling hazardous wastes without release for the intended life of the tank
system. SEC maintains that no certification was necessary.
F. The facility had incomplete documentation in its operating log of the location and quantity of each hazardous waste
within the facility. Specifically, the transfer sheet that documented the movement of containers from SA-6 to SA-5
was discarded rather than retained after the containers were logged in at SA-5.
4. On March 6, 2001, representatives of the Department conducted an inspection of SEC. During the inspection,
Department personnel observed the following:
Storage Area SA-6
A. Waste was observed on the surface of the secondary containment floor in aisles 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13.
B. There was one container in aisle 13 with a hazardous waste label that had no generator information. Additionally,
the facility tracking number and accumulation start date had been removed from the container. This container was not
labeled with an EPA hazardous waste number.
C. Aisle space between rows 12 and 13 was inadequate.
One fifty-five gallon drum of hazardous waste was not closed.
D. One container of hazardous waste was dented near the base of the drum along a structural rib.
Laboratory
E. The satellite accumulation container located in the facility's Waste Lab was not closed.
Storage Area SA5
F. One container of hazardous waste located near process line 1 was not closed.
G. The labels on two containers of hazardous waste in SA6 had become torn during handling and processing, and the
EPA waste codes were not legible.
H. An inspection of the grassy area behind SA5 revealed two small areas of stained soil. Facility personnel stated the
stains were the result of leaking equipment parked in the area during repairs to SA5.
Truck Loading and Unloading Area
I. The impervious coating in this less than 90 day storage area was torn and peeling. Facility personnel stated this was
the result of the coating being applied in cold temperatures. They also stated that it would be repaired when the
weather warmed. During the inspection the Department reiterated that the damaged areas needed to be repaired as soon
as weather permitted. A subsequent inspection on June 7, 2001 revealed that no repairs had been made to the coating.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing, the Department concludes that SEC has violated the following:
1. Permit Condition II.I.1/Regulation 61-79.264.56(j)(4) and (6), in that SEC's written report on the fire did not
include the name and quantity of material(s) involved, and an assessment of actual or potential hazards to human health
or the environment.
2. Regulation 61-79.264 and R.61-79.265, Subpart I, in that SEC failed to follow proper container management
procedures.
3. Permit Condition II.A/Regulation 61-79.264.31, in that SEC failed to maintain and operate the blended fuel storage
tanks to minimize the possibility of an unplanned sudden or nonsudden release of hazardous waste.
4. Permit Condition II.k.1.a/Regulation 61-79.264.73(b)(1) and (2), in that SEC failed to maintain an operating record
that included the location and quantity of each hazardous waste within the facility.
5. Regulation 61-79.264.35, in that SEC failed to maintain adequate aisle space in storage area SA6.
6. Regulation 61-79.268.50(a)(2)(i), in that SEC failed to mark a container of hazardous waste in storage area SA6
with the accumulation date.
7. S.C. Code Ann. §48-1-90(1987) in that SEC allowed diesel fuel to discharge to the ground in two areas behind
storage area SA5, allowed fire-fighting foam and water to enter a nearby creek, and placed debris from SA5 and SA6
on the ground, all of which were not in compliance with a permit issued by the Department.
8. Regulation 61-79.265.175(a) in that SEC failed to maintain its less than 90 day truck loading and unloading area
with an impervious surface which is free of cracks and gaps.
9. Regulation 61-79.265.196(f), in that SEC failed to provide certification obtained from an independent, qualified,
registered professional engineer that the repaired BP3 tank system is capable of handling hazardous wastes without
release for the intended life of the system prior to returning the tank to service.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND AGREED that:
1. Within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of this Consent Order, SEC shall submit to the Department documentation
that the truck loading and unloading areas noted in this Order have been repaired;
2. SEC will not receive hazardous or non-hazardous furniture waste containing or contaminated with lacquer dust, with the
exception of liquid lacquer or solvents containing liquid lacquer. SEC will continue to implement its plan provided to the
Department pursuant to Consent Agreement 00-20-HW to prevent such wastes from being received at the facility.
3. Within forty-five (45) days of the effective date of this Consent Order pay to the Department a civil penalty in the
amount of $72,900.
4. Administrative Order 01-23-HW is hereby vacated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND AGREED that this matter is dismissed.
___________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
January 25, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
WE CONSENT:
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Elizabeth B. Partlow Jessica J.O. King
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. South Carolina Department of Health
1501 Main Street, Suite 601 (29201) and Environmental Control
Post Office Box 11206 2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Phone (803) 252-1300 Phone (803) 898-3350
Fax (803) 254-6517 Fax (803) 898-3367
Attorneys for Southeastern Chemical Attorneys for South Carolina Department of & Solvent Company Health and
Environmental Control |