ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER
In this matter the parties disagree as to whether petitioner was required to obtain a permit prior to the construction of a
certain catch basin adjacent to the existing waste water treatment facility (WWTF) of petitioner. Petitioner contends that no
permit was required because the construction of the catch basin did not "materially alter the method or effect of treating
waste" at the lagoons behind his dairy. The Department contends that a permit was required. Prior to the contested case
hearing in this matter, without waiving their respective positions, the parties agreed to resolve this dispute on the terms set
forth in this order.
1. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, petitioner will submit to the Department the following:
a. As built drawings of the catch basin, and
b. An amendment to the petitioner's waste management plan which shall state that the catch basin shall be used solely as an
emergency spill prevention device and that any water that enters the catch basin from the lagoons shall be pumped out as
soon as possible, either back into the lagoons or to the locations where pumping from the lagoons is permitted.
2. The Department shall then issue a permit to the petitioner permitting the modification of his existing WWTF by the
addition of the catch basin.
3. Within one year of the date of this order, petitioner shall construct a liner in the catch basin either by soil compaction or
other suitable means. The parties acknowledge that the catch basin and the surrounding soil must be completely dry for a
significant period of time in order to permit the construction of such a liner. In the event that weather conditions make the
installation of the liner impracticable within the time allowed, petitioner shall promptly provide written notice to the
Department of the reasons for petitioner's inability to meet the deadline and the Department shall grant an extension of the
deadline to the extent necessary due to weather conditions or other conditions beyond petitioner's reasonable control.
4. The proposed administrative order in this matter shall be dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
This 16th day of November, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina
WE CONSENT:
Henry L. Parr, Jr.
Counsel to Petitioner
Samuel L. Finklea, III
Counsel to the Department |