ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On June 19, 2002, Carolina Water Service, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Administrative Review of the
Denial of its Request for a Major Modification of NPDES Permit #SC0027162 for the Watergate Wastewater Treatment
Facility. DHEC transmitted the case to the Administrative Law Judge Division on June 25, 2002. The case originally
was assigned to the Honorable Marvin F. Kittrell but was reassigned to the undersigned Judge on August 1, 2002. After
the parties filed pleadings, the case was scheduled for a hearing on the merits to be held on Thursday, October 3, 2002.
During a conference call between the undersigned Judge and counsel for the parties on October 1, 2002, however, the
parties requested a stay of the hearing pending a final decision in a collateral matter before the Public Service
Commission.
This case has a complex history. Pursuant to the 208 Water Quality Management Plan (“208 Plan”) prepared
by Central Midlands Council of Governments (“COG”) for the Central Midlands Region, the Watergate WWTF was
designated to be eliminated through interconnection with the Town of Lexington’s 12- and 14-Mile Creek regional sewer
system. In June 2000, the COG requested that the Town of Lexington offer a proposed connection agreement to
Petitioner and that Petitioner submit the proposed agreement to the Public Service Commission (“Commission” or
“PSC”) for its review and approval. Pursuant to the COG’s request, Petitioner in fact submitted a proposed connection
agreement to the Commission on August 16, 2000.
Petitioner and the Town of Lexington thereafter negotiated a compromise agreement, which provided in
pertinent part for the sale of the Watergate system to the Town of Lexington upon approval of a 208 Plan Amendment
by the COG and upon the Commission’s approval of the sale. Upon reaching the compromise agreement, Petitioner
withdrew its application for approval of the proposed connection agreement from the Commission.
The Town of Lexington thereafter filed a request with the COG to amend the 208 Plan in accordance with the
compromise agreement. The COG approved the requested 208 Plan Amendment on March 22, 2001, and forwarded it
to DHEC on March 26, 2001. By letter dated July 30, 2001, Alton Boozer, Chief of the Bureau of Water for DHEC,
advised the COG that it did not concur in the 208 Plan Amendment. The COG, the Town of Lexington, and Petitioner
timely appealed DHEC’s decision to the Administrative Law Judge Division. The Honorable John D. Geathers held a
hearing on the merits and issued a final decision on October 22, 2002. All parties to that case appealed the decision to
the DHEC Board, which has not heard the appeal yet.
In the meantime, pursuant to the Amended Final Order and Decision issued by the Honorable Ralph K.
Anderson, III on February 25, 2002, Petitioner resubmitted the proposed connection agreement to the Commission. The
case was docketed 2002-147-S. The Commission held a hearing on the proposed agreement on September 19, 2002,
and issued a final decision on January 7, 2003, disapproving the proposed agreement. No party to the case requested
rehearing or reconsideration of the Commission’s decision.
The central issue in the case before the undersigned Judge is DHEC’s denial of Petitioner’s request for a
modification of the Schedule of Compliance in the NPDES permit for the Watergate WWTF. Petitioner’s NPDES permit
required Petitioner to eliminate discharge via connection to the regional sewer system “no later than June 27, 2003, or
within six months after PSC approval of either a purchase agreement or service agreement, whichever is sooner. In the
event that the discharge cannot be eliminated by June 27, 2003 based on reasons outside the control of the permittee as
agreed to by the Department, the final limits go into effect on July 1, 2003.” Petitioner sought modification of the
schedule because of Petitioner’s belief that it potentially could be required to connect to the regional system prior to PSC
approval of a connection agreement, which would be a violation of the PSC’s regulations. DHEC denied Petitioner’s
request for modification of the schedule on the basis that the agency believed the request to be premature at that time.
Petitioner then appealed DHEC’s denial.
This appeal was stayed pending a final decision by the PSC. On March 5, 2003, DHEC informed Petitioner
by letter that DHEC has determined Petitioner cannot eliminate the discharge from the Watergate WWTF prior to June
27, 2003.
Whereas the PSC has denied the connection agreement between Petitioner and the Town of Lexington and
DHEC has determined Petitioner cannot eliminate the discharge from the Watergate WWTF prior to June 27, 2003,
modification of the schedule of compliance is no longer necessary. The issues in this case, therefore, are moot.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
March 17, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |