South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Southeastern Chemical and Solvent Company vs. SCDHEC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Southeastern Chemical and Solvent Company

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
01-ALJ-07-0335-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

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


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court