SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1997) for contested case hearing requested by the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, an environmental protection organization, and neighboring property owners challenging the permit issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) to Dorchester County Public Works for the land application of partially treated sewage on 95 acres of sprayfields located in the Byrd's community in upper Dorchester County. The proposed site is farm land containing significant wooded wetlands bounded on either side by the waters of the Gum Branch and Indian Field Swamps. The sewage sprayfields are planned as part of a proposed Upper Dorchester Regional Wastewater Treatment Project.

After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted January 12, 13 and 28, 1998. The Court heard the testimony of twelve witnesses including expert witnesses and admitted numerous exhibits in evidence. The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have been given careful consideration.

For the reasons explained below, I conclude that because of the soil conditions exhibited at the proposed sprayfields, the application rates of between 0.5 and .75 inches per week are appropriate for the rate and the facility must have storage capacity for a minimum of 60 days. Therefore, the proposed land application permit is granted as modified above.

1. Is the proposed land application of wastewater from the facility consistent with the requirements of Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act?

2. Does the land application of pre-treated effluent comply with the applicable groundwater quality requirements to prevent any adverse environmental impact of ground and surface water?

The Petitioners contend that contrary to DHEC regulations the soils at the site are too wet to meet minimum regulatory standards for land application of sewage and that the operation of the sprayfields will contaminate groundwater and nearby surface waters. They also contend that the project fails to conform with the project planning requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and is inconsistent with the policies of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program since the need for and full costs of the project and available alternatives have not been accurately evaluated.

The proposed Dorchester facility involves the land application of an average volume of 624,450 gallons per day of partially treated sewage effluent on two sprayfields totaling 95 acres which are to be located on a site consisting of farmland, forest and forested wetlands bordered by the Gum Branch and Indian Field Swamps in the Byrd's community of upper Dorchester County. On January 31, 1997, the Department issued No Discharge Permit ND0074713 for the proposed Upper Dorchester Wastewater Treatment Facility. A secondary wastewater treatment facility will be designed to employ a series of aerated lagoon cells and chlorination to achieve limited pretreatment of the sewage prior to land application. Because the secondary treatment will be limited, the sewage effluent must receive effective biological treatment in the soil after land application before it can be safely discharged to groundwater or nearby surface waters without violating relevant water quality standards. Thus, it is critical that the characteristics of the site and the design of the facility are adequate to assure safe discharge of the sewage effluent to the environment.

The permit was issued to Dorchester County Public Works under the authority of the South Carolina Pollution Control Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 48-1-10, et seq., which requires that a permit be issued by DHEC prior to construction of such a facility and any discharge of waste from that facility to the environment.

S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-90 provides:

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to throw, drain, run, allow to seep or otherwise discharge into the environment of the State organic or inorganic matter, including sewage, industrial wastes and other wastes, except in compliance with a permit issued by the Department.

Thus, the operation of this wastewater treatment and land application facility which inherently requires the discharge of a large volume of sewage effluent into the environment is unlawful except as authorized by a DHEC permit. The activity proposed at the sprayfield sites require a permit.

Pursuant to the Pollution Control Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-30, DHEC has promulgated the State Land Application Permitting Regulation, R.61-9.505 which establishes the regulatory requirements which must be met in order for this permit to be issued and the discharge of sewage effluent to be allowed. DHEC's regulation recognizes the minimum site conditions necessary to assure the biological treatment of the waste in the soil by requiring that spray sites exhibit satisfactory soil conditions, Section 505.42(b)(4)(l), and by establishing maximum effluent application rates based upon the depth of the soils to seasonal high groundwater levels. Table I at Section 505.42 of the Regulation establishes a minimum soil depth to seasonal high water of three feet. No effluent application is permitted unless certain specified conditions are met. Land application to soils with depth to seasonal high water of less than three feet may be permitted only where the wastewater effluent meets more stringent pretreatment standards known as tertiary treatment. Such required tertiary treatment standards include a 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) of 10mg/l, ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) of 2 mg/l and Nitrate (N) of 10 mg/l. Section 505.42(b)(4)(iii). The Preliminary Engineering Report for this facility, however, describes a secondary treatment facility which will only be designed to achieve a 30 mg/l treatment standard for BOD5 and suspended solids. Thus, for this permit to be approved, the proposed sprayfields must meet a minimum soil depth to seasonal high water of three feet.

Ultimately, the Regulations prohibit the issuance of a land application permit when the imposition of conditions cannot ensure that the biological treatment of wastewater will be in compliance with applicable surface or groundwater quality requirements. Section 505.4. Thus, where site and soil conditions preclude the effective treatment of a given wastewater effluent no land application permit may be approved.

Section 505.4(e) also prohibits the issuance of a Land Application permit for an "activity which is inconsistent with a plan or plan amendment approved under section 208(b) of the CWA (federal Clean Water Act), unless the Department finds such variance necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare." Thus, the Department must determine whether the proposed activity is consistent with the applicable 208 plan. Section 208(b) of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 USCA Sec 1288(B)(2)(e), requires planning to meet a community's wastewater treatment needs which must include assessing the cost of carrying out the plan, including the cost of the facility in question, and "the economic, social and environmental impact of carrying out the plan." It is this planning requirement which drives the evaluation contained in the project's Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), and the review and amendment of the 208 plan by the regional planning body, in this case the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments (BCD-COG), which, in turn, must be reviewed by the Department for a consistency determination.

It is essential that the Department be diligent in making this determination to assure protection of the environment from adverse impacts that are excessive or unwarranted. "The State of South Carolina has a substantial interest in maintaining reasonable standards of purity of the air and water resources of the State." South Carolina Dep't of Health and Envt'l Control v. Armstrong, 293 S.C. 209, 359 S.E.2d 302, 304-305 (S.C. App. 1987). DHEC "is authorized to take action to abate, control and prevent pollution of the air and water resources of this State consistent with the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens." Id., 359 S.E.2d at 305, and may "issue, deny, revoke, suspend or modify permits, under such conditions as it may prescribe for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste or other waste or air contaminants or for the installation or operation of disposal systems or sources or parts thereof." S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-50(5).

Here, it is contended by Petitioners that the need and cost analysis of this project presented in the PER and reviewed by the BCD-COG and DHEC significantly distort the need for and costs of the project as compared to available alternatives; and that no assessment whatever has been made of the serious adverse indirect social, economic and environmental costs which will be caused by the unplanned development which will result from this wastewater project.

The assessment of such long term and cumulative impacts of this project is also required by the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 48-39-80(B)(11), and the Management Program of the Department which require that the impacts of this project be consistent with the State's Coastal Zone Management Program policies. South Carolina Wildlife Federation v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 371 S.E.2d 521, 296 S.C. 187 (S.C. 1988). S.C.Code Ann. § 48-39-80(B)(11), requires a determination that the proposed project is consistent with the policies of the South Carolina Coastal Management Program, including the protection of sensitive and fragile areas from inappropriate development and the protection, maintenance and improvement of water quality particularly in areas of special resource value. The Act also requires evaluation of the possible long-range, cumulative effects of the project, when reviewed in the context of other possible development and the general character of the area and the extent and significance of the impact on the quality or quantity of valuable coastal resources including: the impact on unique natural areas, the destruction of endangered wildlife or vegetation, the degradation of existing water quality standards, the degradation of environmental quality and the interruption of existing public access to public recreation lands and the loss of historic or archeological resources.

As discussed above the essential regulatory requirement for permitting the land application of wastewater at any rate of application is that the site provide a minimum depth of three feet to "Seasonal High Water (or measured high water depth, e.g. piezometer readings," R. 505.42(b)(4)(I), Table 1. At three feet to high water an application rate of 0.5 inches of effluent per week is permitted; at a four feet depth, 1 inch per week; and at five feet "or more" a maximum effluent application rate of two inches per week is authorized by the regulation. Initially, DHEC approved an application rate of .75 inches per week. After further discussion and consultation with Dorchester County, DHEC approved a proposed effluent application rate of 1.75 inches per week. This rate was based upon readings obtained from piezometer installed on the site. The proposed sewage sprayfields fail to meet the minimum DHEC standard. Storage capacity for sixty days of wastewater at a minimum would be necessary at 0.5 and .75 application rates. Typical storage capacity is for thirty days.

Based on the soil characteristics exhibited in nine hand auger borings obtained from throughout the proposed sprayfields on September 1994, DHEC's staff hydrogeologist Chris Forrest initially recommended effluent application rates of only 0.5 and 0.75 inches per week for the sprayfields as originally configured. Of these nine soil borings all except one exhibited soil conditions "really significant color, ironstone, blue-gray type of soil," indicating the presence of the seasonal high water table at levels less than the regulatory minimum three foot depth. The single boring, # 7, which indicated a seasonal high water table of four feet, meeting DHEC minimum requirements, was located on the extreme western edge of the site where the field drops off toward the Gum Branch Swamp. Although the soil borings were conducted during the dry season in September, Mr. Forrest relied upon well established soil characteristics that are indicative of the long term presence of the seasonal high water table usually occurring during the wetter winter months each year. The soil borings confirmed the seasonal high water table levels mapped for the site in the Dorchester Soil Survey. For example, boring #1 confirmed the Soil Survey's mapping of Goldsboro soil in what is now identified as sprayfield #1 and a seasonal high water table of only 2.5 feet matching the values indicated for that soil in the Soil Survey. Despite the unacceptable results of the soil borings at the site Mr. Forrest interpreted the DHEC regulation to allow an effluent application rate of from 0.5 to 0.75 inches per week for the project.

Dorchester County and its engineer indicated that the approved application rate would not allow the system to handle the level of effluent generated. Mr. Forrest approved a plan to establish a grid of water table level monitors, piezometers, to gather data to support an increased effluent application rate. The piezometer locations he specified were based on the original sprayfield configurations, avoiding wetlands area where he understood no effluent was to be applied. Dorchester actually plans to fill slightly less than 10 acres of wetlands for incorporation in the sprayfields.

Thereafter, on the basis of the water table measurements obtained for the limited period from December 1994 through May 1995, the application rates were increased 1.4 and 1.75 inches per week for the newly configured sprayfields. In fact, water table levels for the site mapped during this very period from measurements taken February 21, 1995, displayed on Map 15 of the Preliminary Engineering Report, indicate depths to the seasonal high water table in sprayfield #1 of only 1.5 to 2 feet. Measurements on that same date for the eastern edge of sprayfield # 2 show seasonal high water table depths of less than the minimum three feet. More recent data from new Piezometer # 95 located in sprayfield #2 shows less than three feet to the water table in the December 8, 1997, monthly reading as well as a July 1997 reading of only 2.5 feet. No cogent basis was offered by DHEC for approving these effluent application rates for soils that fail to meet even the minimum regulatory requirements.

The Petitioners' expert reviewed the Preliminary Engineering Report and DHEC permitting files, site soil evaluations, piezometer data, topographic maps and conducted his own site inspection. Based upon this material, he concluded that the proposed site is an extremely poor choice for land application. He concluded that most of the soils in sprayfields 1 and 2 will have seasonal high water tables of less than three feet which fail to meet the minimum requirements of DHEC regulations. This conclusion is supported by Dorchester's own mapping of the site, Map 15 of the PER, indicating significant areas in each sprayfield with measured high water levels of less than two feet, and their own soil borings, PER Appendix pp. 55-63, evidencing water table levels of generally less than three feet. The presence of numerous wetlands pockets, ponded surface water and the experience of those who have farmed in the area with the extremely wet conditions all reflect conditions that would drastically impair the performance of the proposed wastewater sprayfield at this site.

According to the U.S.D.A. Soil Survey for Dorchester County, South Carolina, each of the soils present in the proposed sprayfields exhibit "severe" restrictions for use as septic tank absorption fields due to "wetness." Much of Site 1 consists of Goldsboro soils with a seasonal water table between two and three feet. The Noboco soils which make up the other large portion of this site exhibit seasonal water tables between 2.5 and 4.0 feet. Site 1 also appears to include some Rains and Seagate soils with water tables of less than one foot and 2.5 feet, respectively. Site 2 includes these same unacceptably wet soils as well as some Pelham with a water table of less than 1.5 feet and a small area of Bonneau with a seasonal water table between 3.5 and 5.0 feet.

The most reliable measure of the expected future seasonal high water table levels at a particular site are provided by an examination of actual soil conditions which exhibit the seasonal water levels over thousands of years. These soil conditions are relied upon in the official Soil Survey of Dorchester County to interpret seasonal water table levels for soil types including those found at this site. Conditions as grey colors and iron concretions indicate the historical seasonal high water tables over the centuries. "Grey mottles" indicate periods of soil saturation of at least thirty days or more per year. Such distinctive soil conditions occur where iron in the soil is reduced due to lack of oxygen, becomes soluble in the water and moves up and down with the water table levels. By contrast, a single season of piezometer readings reflect only the climatic conditions for that single season (such as a season with heavy rainfall or one with very little rainfall). Such limited data may provide an inaccurate picture of expected future seasonal water table levels. Here, no evidence suggests that short term piezometer measurements should be relied upon to establish a greater depth to the seasonal high water table than is indicated by actual soil conditions. In addition, there is no evidence to establish that the soils in these areas are incorrectly charted or mapped for the soil survey. Moreover, the existence of anomalous deep water table measurements in otherwise wet soils may indicate the unidentified presence of perched water table conditions. Such shallow pockets of groundwater would interfere with the sprayfield's performance. Identification of perched water tables at the site would require the installation of an additional series of shallow piezometers beyond the deep piezometers presently in place.

Robert T. Eppinette is a Soil Scientist employed by the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service in Walterboro, South Carolina. Mr. Eppinette performed the soil mapping of Dorchester County including the proposed sprayfield site in the Byrds community for the Dorchester County Soil Survey publication between 1982-84.

The majority of the soils at the proposed sprayfield site in the Byrds community have seasonal high water tables within three feet of the surface. Mr. Eppinette visited the proposed sprayfield site with Mr. Bob McKinnon. He bored a couple of holes to explain the soil characteristics and determine the seasonal high water table. Mr. Eppinette looked at certain soil features mainly soil colors which indicate seasonal high water table level. In the two holes he bored the seasonal high water table level was approximately 34 inches below the surface in one and 35 inches in the other. These soils have been in place for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Laboratory research indicates that it takes one to two months to reduce red soil to gray colors. In a natural state it would take at least that long to form these gray colors. The soil boring by Mr. Eppinette also confirmed the mapping of the soils he did for the soil survey publication.

Both Noboco and Goldsboro soils present at the sprayfields exhibit severe limitations because of wetness. It is impractical to overcome such limitation to apply waste water on the fields. By comparison moderate limitations might be overcome by design modifications and slight limitations do not normally require modifications. In Mr. Eppinette's opinion there are only a few small areas on this proposed site that would be suitable for this land application system according to the DHEC guidelines for seasonal high water tables.

I conclude on this basis as well as that the proposed sprayfields fail to meet the minimum regulatory requirements for depth to the seasonal high water table provided in R. 61-9.505.42(b)(4)(I), Table I. Although the piezometer readings alone does not present sufficient reliable data for application rates of 1.4 and 1.75, the piezometer readings taken in conjunction with the soil types seems to indicate that the soils may be able to accommodate a limited amount of effluent discharge. The initial application rates proposed by Chris Forrest at DHEC are reasonable and should be imposed.

2. COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY AND OTHER PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

As cited above DHEC's Land Application Regulation imposes a number of critical land application system performance requirements in order to assure that the system is sited and designed so that it will function properly and will not result in the discharge of effluent in a manner which will violate applicable surface and groundwater quality requirements. R.61-9.505 prohibits effluent application during periods when water is ponded, when there is standing water or when the site is flooded. Section 505.41(p)(2). The regulation prohibits "runoff of any effluent, sludge, treated waste or mixture of pollutants outside the permitted area." Section 505.41(p)(6). Ultimately, DHEC Regulations prohibit the issuance of a land application permit "(w)hen the imposition of conditions cannot ensure compliance with applicable surface or groundwater quality requirements . . ." Section 505.4. Thus, where site and soil conditions preclude the effective treatment of a given wastewater effluent no land application permit may be approved.

In the expert opinion of Dr. Bobby Carlisle the wastewater effluent, which will only be treated to secondary treatment standards prior to land application, will inevitably be discharged to groundwater and surface water without adequate treatment in the soil, thereby violating applicable ground and surface water quality standards. Given the excessive effluent application rates proposed, the extremely wet soil conditions, and the inadequate pre-application storage capacity it is inevitable that effluent will be discharged to the soil surface where it will contaminate ponded surface water and will flow off the site into drainage ditches containing surface waters or into the nearby waters of adjacent ponds, the Gum Branch or the Indian Field Swamps. The discharge of untreated effluent from the site or into surface or ponded groundwater violates regulatory requirements. In his opinion even the best soils at this site could only support an effluent application rate of 0.5 inches per week. Significant portions of each proposed sprayfield will tolerate no effluent application during extended periods. A very large effluent storage lagoon would be required for the extended periods during which no effluent could be safely applied at this site.

These conclusions of Dr. Carlisle's are supported by consideration of the September 1992 EPA manual for land application, "Wastewater Treatment and Disposal for Small Communities," EPA 625/R-92/005, which provides design criteria for site selection specifying, "an unsaturated depth greater than 1 meter/ 3.3 feet to the top of any groundwater mound is usually necessary." P. 73, Section 5.6.5. By groundwater mound the EPA is referring to the groundwater elevation after applying the wastewater and the water table rises. The seasonal high water table level is measured after application of wastewater. In general, the water table level will be higher after wastewater application and mounding, as much as two or three feet when high amounts are applied during high rainfall years. The depth to seasonal high water levels should then be at least 3.3 feet after wastewater application. No mounding analysis has even been performed even given the enormous volume of wastewater to be applied to this site. In the same publication EPA specifies a maximum hydraulic loading rate: "(T)he maximum application rate used is 2 to 4% of the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the least permeable soil rising within 8 feet of the surface." P. 74, Section 5.6.5.4. In other words a test of permeability, i.e. the speed the speed with which water flows downward in the soil, is performed on the most restrictive soil layer and the hydraulic loading rate should be limited to between 2 and 4% of that permeability number. For this site the PER reflects an average permeability based on hydraulic conductivity tests fro the sprayfield of 2.45 inches per day. Using EPA's loading rates of between 2 and 4% a hydraulic loading rate of between 0.3 and 0.6 inches per week would be permissible for this sprayfield compared with the proposed permitted rate of 1.75 inches per week.

Based on this evidence, the proposed land application design fails to meet the DHEC regulatory requirements for system performance and its operation will inevitably lead to violations of applicable ground and surface water quality standards. The application rates must be adjusted to reduce the amount of effluent sprayed upon the fields.

3. CONFORMANCE OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CLEAN WATER AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACTS

As discussed above Petitioners contend that the Upper Dorchester Wastewater Treatment Project not only fails to comply with the specific regulatory requirements for land application of wastewater but also statutory requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, which, taken together, require the assessment of the social, economic and environmental costs of the project.

Section 505.4(e) of DHEC's Land Application Regulation, R.61-9, also prohibits the issuance of a Land Application permit for an "activity which is inconsistent with a plan or plan amendment approved under section 208(b) of the CWA (federal Clean Water Act), unless the Department finds such variance necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare." Thus, the Department must determine whether the proposed activity is consistent with the applicable 208 plan. Independent of the Department's own regulation it has the implied authority to review and enforce provisions of the Section 208 Plans. City of Columbia v. Board of Health and Environmental Control, 355 S.E.2d 536, 292 S.C. 199 (S.C. 1987).

Section 208(b) of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1288(B)(2)(e), requires planning to meet a community's wastewater treatment needs which must include assessing the cost of carrying out the plan, including the cost of the facility in question, and "the economic, social and environmental impact of carrying out the plan." It is this planning requirement which drives the evaluation contained in the project's Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), and the review and amendment of the 208 plan by the regional planning body, here the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments (BCD-COG), which, in turn, must be reviewed by the Department for a consistency determination. Petitioners argue that the need and cost analysis of this project presented in the PER and reviewed by the BCD-COG and DHEC significantly distort the need for and costs of the project as compared to available alternatives; and that no assessment has been made of the serious adverse indirect social, economic, and environmental costs of this project that results from unplanned development.

The assessment of such long term and cumulative impacts of this project is also required by the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, S.C. Code § 48-39-80(B)(11), and the Management Program of the Department which require that the impacts of this project be consistent with the State's Coastal Zone Management Program policies. South Carolina Wildlife Federation v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 371 S.E.2d 521, 296 S.C. 187 (S.C. 1988).

DHEC has adequately assessed the impacts of this proposed project as required and is entitled to rely in part on the functions of the BCD-COG which approved the amendment to the 208 Plan. The evidence presented demonstrated that the BCD-COG studied and carefully considered the amendment tothe 208 Plan. Although the PER may not have contined details of the costs of upgrading the Harleyville and St. George Treatment plants, the evidence clearly indicates that these plants are exceeding their permit limitations not only in flow but also in the effluent component limitations. Further, these facilities will have to be upgraded or modified to meet more stringent standards for discharge absent any construction on the Upper Dorchester project.

The 208 Plan was amended to include a collection and treatment system to serve the Upper Dorchester County area. The BCD-COG recognized and identified the need for additional wastewater treatement capacity to support future growth in the county. Whether the BCD-COG properly acted on this amendment is not for review before this administrative tribunal. DHEC, however, is entitled to rely on activity by a property constituted governmental entity in determining whether to issue the permit. The need was established and certainly outweighed any negative impacts resulting to the environment because of increased industrialization.

I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the requirement for the parties to establish their respective cases by a preponderance of the evidence and taking into account the credibility of the witnesses:

1. In July 1992, Dorchester County submitted a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) on the Upper Dorchester County Wastewater Treatment Facility and the proposed areas for land application of the pre-treated effluent. The property was located in the Byrd community in Dorchester County near Highway 78.

2. The PER requested approval for the land application of 1,630,000 gallons per day (GPD) at a rate of 1.5 inches/acre/week using a center pivot spray system over 200 acres.

3. On March 18, 1994, DHEC gave conditional approval for land application of 540,000 gallons per day (GPD) over approximately 200 acres at a rate of 0.50 inches/week on Area #1 (73.7 acres) and 0.75 inches/week on Area #2 (136.4 acres). This determination was based upon five soil borings obtained from the site. DHEC also required the amendment of the Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester (BCD) Section 208 Management Plan by the BCD Council of Governments (BCD-COG).

4. In September 1994, the site was revisited to evaluate an additional area for effluent disposal. Nine additional hand auger soil borings were obtained to determine the soil characteristics and the seasonal high water table conditions for the proposed spray area.

5. These soil borings revealed the following information:

HA#1 - seasonal high water table estimate 2.5 feet below the surface

HA#2 - seasonal high water table estimate 2.5 to 3.0 feet

HA#3 - seasonal high water table estimate 2.0 feet

HA#4 - seasonal high water table estimate 2.0 feet

HA#5 - seasonal high water table estimate 1.0 feet (sample obtained near wetlands)

HA#6 - seasonal high water table estimate 1.5 to 2.0 feet

HA#7 - seasonal high water table estimate 4.0 feet

HA#8 - seasonal high water table estimate 2.0 feet

HA#9 - seasonal high water table estimate 1.0 feet

6. Based upon this information DHEC determined "that the cleared fields located within site #1 which are drained by ditches and presently used for agricultural purposes are geohydrolically approved for 0.75"/wk application rate. The cleared fields located within site #2 drained by ditches and presently used for agricultural purposes are approved for a 0.50"/wk application rate."

7. DHEC further stated that piezometers could be installed and measure bi-monthly throughout the sites to determine actual seasonal high water table conditions during the fall and winter months. Further, "due to the existing drainage ditches located throughout the site, the seasonal high water table may be deeper at many locations than what the soil profile indicates." DHEC attached a map the approximate locations for the installation of piezometers.

8. Subsequently DHEC informed Dorchester County that a permit could not be issued until, inter alia: the wetlands are delineated by the Corps of Engineers, specific site areas for proposed irrigation are delineated; and the revised project description and the revised PER are certified by BCD-COG.

9. BCD-COG conducted meeting and public hearings on the proposed amendments to the Upper Dorchester County Regional Wastewater Treatment System 208 Plan. The Plan calls for the development of the facility to serve all of Dorchester County including Ridgeville handling one million gallons a day by the year 2015. The project would be completed in two phases. Phase I allows capacity of 560,000 GPD and if capacity is met in the future expanding the plant for the remaining capacity. The facility would have aerated lagoons and a fourteen day storage facility.

10. One of the reasons for the proposed facility was the potential growth areas of the Interchanges I-95 and Hwy 178, I-95 and Hwy 78, and I-26. The wastewater treatment facilities at Harleyville and St. George often exceed their permitted capacity and stricter controls on discharge effluent characteristics (such as ammonia and BOD) are being implemented by DHEC. These facilities cannot handle the additional wastewater capacity for discharge into the environment at regulated levels.

11. Harleyville and St. George facilities are discharging the effluent into the Polk Swamp and Gum Branch Swamp.

12. The Technical Advisory Committee recommended approval of the 208 Plan amendment to the Environmental Committee of the BCD-COG, which also approved the Plan.

13. Dr. Carlisle reviewed the Preliminary Engineering Report and various supplemental materials prepared by B.P. Barber & Associates for submission to DHEC in support of Dorchester County's proposed land application permit including site soils evaluations and sprayfield design materials, various DHEC permitting correspondence regarding the facility, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Dorchester County, topographic maps and aerial photographs of the proposed site and historic rainfall records for the project area. He also conducted a physical inspection of the proposed sprayfield site and the general surrounding area.

14. From a technical perspective site and soil conditions must meet minimum standards in order for the incompletely treated sewage effluent which is to be land-applied to the sprayfield to receive effective biological treatment in the soils prior to discharge to ground or surface water. DHEC's State Land Application Permitting Regulations, R.61-9.505 recognize these minimum site conditions by requiring that spray sites exhibit satisfactory soil conditions, Section 505.42(b)(4)(I), and by establishing maximum effluent application rates based upon depth of the soils to seasonal high groundwater levels. Thus, where site and soil conditions preclude the effective treatment of a given wastewater effluent no land application permit may be approved.

15. The human or domestic waste requiring treatment consists of pathogens including bacteria and viruses which must receive some level of treatment before getting into ground water, surface water or the atmosphere. Secondly, the organic loadings of the waste water must be treated before discharge to surface or groundwater to meet organic limits. Thirdly, nutrients including nitrates, ammonia or phosphorous must be treated before discharge to surface water to prevent environmental impacts.

16. Once the organics have entered the soil they pose the potential for movement through the soil more readily under saturated or anaerobic soil conditions where under such conditions fairly high organic levels may be seen in groundwater. Where organics present in sewage are discharged onto the surface of the soil they are subject to runoff which may enter surface waters along with other drainage.

17. Ideally, organic nitrogen or ammonia present in the waste urea in wastewater will be converted into nitrates in the effectively functioning system. Where you have aerobic soil conditions of a certain depth all this ammonia is converted to nitrates which are in turn removed and utilized by plant roots which are fertilized from the septic waste. However, where high water table conditions are present with a very small zone of aerobic soil beneath the sprayfield the nitrogen is not usually converted into nitrates but stays in the ammonia form due to insufficient aeration capacity in the soil. While the presence of such ammonia in the soil may not pose a problem, if such ammonia-laden wastewater comes to the surface and enters a stream such ammonia is extremely toxic to fish at concentrations of only two to three parts per million in many cases.

18. Nitrates present in groundwater can be toxic to humans or livestock if consumed as drinking water.

19. The main treatment process in the sprayfield takes place in the soil after the sewage is sprayed from the secondary treatment facility or holding lagoon onto the sprayfield. There the wastewater should be further treated (through a natural organic process) prior to either entering groundwater or flowing into surface water. The soil system must remove the organics, absorb and allow the pathogens to die off, and serve as a reservoir for the nutrients for plant utilization and uptake. This soil treatment system works best under highly aerobic conditions. The more air in the soil system through an aerobic zone beneath the sprayfield the better job it does of removing pathogens, organics and nutrients through plant utilization. In order for air to get into the soil beneath the drain field it must diffuse from the surface through pores or air spaces in the soil which are free of water. Without aerobic conditions in the soil the organics will not be broken down and pathogens will migrate.

20. Where the seasonal high water table rises to near the surface partially treated sewage may be discharged directly into groundwater. Surface discharge of partially treated sewage effluent violates state regulations which prohibit discharge of effluent on the surface of the ground. Effluent on the surface creates ponding and may also enter an adjacent surface water body through runoff after rainfall event.

21. The Preliminary Engineering Report describes a secondary treatment facility to be designed to achieve a 30 mg/l treatment standard for BOD5 and suspended solids consisting of a series of aerated lagoon cells, chlorination and a small holding lagoon. DHEC has approved a permit for the land application of this pretreated sewage effluent to the sprayfield at an application rate of 540,000 gallons per day.

22. The proposed Dorchester facility sprayfield is to be located in a low elevation site consisting of farmland, forest and forested wetlands bordered by the Gum Branch and Indian Field Swamps. The sprayfield soils are moderately permeable with seasonal high water tables at depths of 0.5 to 4 feet. Most of the soils in both sites 1 and 2 will have seasonal high water tables of less than 3 feet. According to the U.S.D.A. Soil Survey for Dorchester County, South Carolina, each of the soils present in the proposed sprayfields exhibit "severe" restrictions for use as septic tank absorption fields due to "wetness." According to Maps 11 and 16 of the Preliminary Engineering Report the proposed sprayfields consist of the following soils with seasonal high water tables described in the Soil Survey: Site 1, Noboco (NoA) 2.5' to 4.0', Goldsboro (GoA) 2.0' to 3.0', Seagate (Se) 1.5' to 2.5', Rains (Ra) 0.0' to 1.0'; Site 2, Seagate (Se) 1.5' to 2.5', Goldsboro (GoA) 2.0' to 3.0', Pelham (Pe) 0.5'-1.5', Rains (Ra) 0.0' to 1.0' and Bonneau (BoA) 3.5'-5'.

23. The proposed sprayfields are crossed by existing drainage ditches which flow to the adjacent surface waters and swamps. A number of wetlands have been identified at the site. Slightly less than 10 acres of wetlands are proposed to be filled or otherwise altered for inclusion in the sprayfields or other portions of the facility. DHEC has approved an effluent application rate of 1.75" per week on Site 1 and an application rate of 1.40" per week for the eastern portion of Site 2, both of which Dorchester maintains consist exclusively of Noboco and Goldsboro soils.

24. The most reliable measure of the expected future seasonal high water table levels at a particular site are provided by an examination of actual soil conditions which exhibit direct evidence of the seasonal water levels over thousands of years. It is these soil conditions which are relied upon in the official Soil Survey of Dorchester County to interpret seasonal water table levels for soil types including those found at this site. Such conditions as grey colors and iron concretions indicate the historical seasonal high water tables over the centuries. Such indications referred to as "grey mottles" indicate periods of soil saturation of at least thirty days or more per year.

25. Piezometer readings obtained periodically over time reflect only the climatic conditions for that time period. Such limited data may provide an inaccurate picture of expected future seasonal water table levels. Here, no evidence suggests that short term piezometer measurements should be relied upon exclusively to establish a greater depth to the seasonal high water table than is indicated by actual soil conditions.

26. The existence of anomalous deep water table measurements in otherwise wet soils may indicate the unidentified presence of perched water table conditions. Such shallow pockets of groundwater would interfere with the sprayfield's performance. Identification of perched water tables at the site would require the installation of an additional series of shallow piezometers beyond the deep piezometers presently in place. Map 15 of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) indicates significant areas in each spray site with measured high water table levels of less than 2 feet. In addition soil boring logs obtained by Dorchester County, PER Appendix pp. A-55-63, from the proposed sprayfield sites indicate soil conditions evidencing water table levels of generally less than 3 feet.

27. There were no piezometers installed in the area currently configured as sprayfield site #2.

28. There are pockets of wetlands and areas of ponded surface water during the wet season that further indicate a generally high water table on the site. Experience of those who have farmed portions of the site verify evidence of periods of extremely wet conditions during which farming activities are difficult or impossible. These same conditions would impair the performance of a proposed wastewater sprayfield on this site.

29. Filling the existing drainage ditches and wetlands may exacerbate the wetness problems of this site. Filling the ditches will raise the water table levels in areas close to the present ditches. Filling the wetlands which now store significant amounts of water may cause that water to pond or flow elsewhere on the site.

30. The addition of 1.75 inches of wastewater effluent per week represents the addition of approximately 91 inches of water per year to the normal annual rainfall of approximately 50 inches on this site. The site will have to handle increased moisture each year which may increase the groundwater level as well as increase ponding and runoff at this site.

31. Even the best soils at this site could only support an effluent application rate of 0.5 inches per week. Significant portions of each proposed sprayfield will tolerate no effluent application during extended periods. A very large effluent storage lagoon would be required for the extended periods during which no effluent could be safely applied at this site.

32. The best soil series present at the proposed site is the Bonneau series which generally exhibits a seasonal water table of between 3.5 to 5 feet. Goldsboro soils reflect a water table of between 2 to 3 feet. Noboco soils are between 2.5 to 4 feet. Both Noboco and Goldsboro soils exhibit severe limitations for septic tank utilization because of wetness meaning it is impractical to overcome such limitation. By comparison moderate limitations might be overcome by design modifications and slight limitations need not normally require modifications. In Mr. Eppinette's opinion there are only a few small areas on this proposed site that would be suitable for this land application system according to the DHEC guidelines for seasonal high water tables.

33. Sewer supports an intensity of development that is not possible in the absence of sewer, particularly in areas like the one in question where the soils are not conducive to septic tanks.

34. Hugh M. Walters is one of the Petitioners. He lives at 709 Gum Branch Road in St. George, South Carolina and owns property with his family that adjoins the Horne tract where the proposed sprayfields are to be located on the South near the confluence of Gum Branch and Little Gum Branch Swamps. Although, he has an interest in some 4,000 acres in the vicinity of the proposed project including property downstream of the site where Gum Branch and Little Gum Branch flow into Indian Field Swamp. Mr. Walters farms the land and operates a commercial hunting business named Deerfield Plantation.

35. Mr. Walters operates Deerfield Lodge on about 125 acres located within about one half mile from the sprayfields where he can house 10 or 15 people who hunt and fish on his land. The lodge is an old plantation house built in the late 1800's and identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. He takes clients fishing for bream and pike in the ponds and waters of Indian Field and Gum Branch Swamps where he and his clients contact the water by wading.

36. He farms row crops and hay including corn and soybeans, wheat, oats, rye and coastal Bermuda hay and land directly adjacent to the sprayfield site. Mr. Walters is concerned that water quality will ruined as a result of the proposed sprayfield. He owns property on the Polk Swamp where fishing has been ruined as a result of discharges from the St. George sewage plant. He foresees the same thing happening here because of his experience farming the land all his life and observing the effect of high water. He is also concerned about the negative impact of the project on his commercial hunting operation. Little Gum Branch runs within about 200 yards of his lodge and the waters from the swamp have flooded his roads. Sewage running off from the sprayfields will flow onto his property and will ruin the swamp. Such impacts would cause loss of his hunting business. His commercial hunting activities usually run from August 15 until May 1. From August to January is deer hunting. From January to March is quail season; and from March to May they hunt turkey. He takes his customers fishing during afternoons and when they are not hunting. Mr. Walters has soybeans still in the field unharvested because low and wet conditions prevent him from getting in the fields.

37. Robert L. McKinnon is one of the Petitioners. He lives at 154 Byrd Farm Road on Byrd Farm adjacent to the Horne property which is the site of the proposed sprayfields. Mr. McKinnon, his wife and son, live on the property along with his brother, George K. McKinnon, who is blind and disabled. Robert McKinnon is employed as a middle school principal and he operates the family farm together with his brothers George and William. The family property is located in the Byrd community of Upper Dorchester County which was founded by the Byrd family about 1840. Mr. McKinnon's grandfather was William Lewis Byrd who farmed the land which he now owns and farms.

38. The Byrd community is located about 7 or 8 miles from the Town of St. George off highway 78. Most of the land in the community is farmland in small to medium farms. People plant soybeans, corn, cotton, have cows. There is a lot of recreational hunting and fishing in the adjacent swamps and woodlands and a lot of woodlands and timber conservation.

39. Indian Field Swamp runs from around Orangeburg through the Byrd's community along the McKinnon and Horne property which is the site of the proposed sprayfields. It has a wide floodplain. At times the swamp area is flooded and very high. All of the area in the vicinity including our farm drains toward the Indian Field, Gum Branch or Little Gum Branch Swamps. Indian Field joins Little Gum Branch below the property into Indian Field Swamp, which flows into Polk Swamp and on into the Edisto River.

40. The McKinnon's own about 460 acres in the Byrd's community, 65 acres in prime timberland. The project is proposing a road next to his property line and the sprayfield would be very close. His family has about 50 head of cattle. They have 16 or 17 acres in hay for the cows and also plant soybeans, cotton and corn as well as managing timber. All of his family enjoy outdoor activities including fishing Indian Field Swamp, hunting and working on the farm.

41. James S. Horne, Jr., one of the Petitioners, has lived in the Byrd's community all of his life. He is retired and is the first cousin of William S. Horne who owned the property which is the site of the proposed sewage project. He has farmed the property and managed it for wildlife. He fishes the property and takes people quail and deer hunting on the property.

42. Petitioner, Kennie W. Harbeson, lives and farms on about 70 acres of property on the downstream side of Gum Branch. He raises hogs and has a fish pond near one of the sprayfields. Quite a bit of water would drain down to his property because of the lay of his land.

43. People in the community rely on private wells for drinking water including nine members of the Harbeson family, Hugh Walters and his lodge and Mr. McKinnon's family. The Harbeson property is to the southwest of the proposed sprayfields across Gum Branch Swamp.

44. Mr. McKinnon has visited and observed the Horne property and the proposed sprayfield site many times over the years. He knows it to be extremely wet property, an area with an enormous amount of water flowing through it to the swamp including flow through a number of interconnected ditches. Mr. McKinnon observed and photographed the site on December 25, 1997. The photographs depict ponded water on the site overflowing and crossing the dike roadway draining directly into the Indian Field Swamp, an old cemetery on the Horne property which is protected, ponded water in the field near sprayfield # 2, a drainage ditch in the vicinity of sprayfield # 2, which is flowing and full of water, and piezometer 94 in a field with ponded water and wet, boggy conditions.

45. Of all the areas in the Byrd's community the proposed sprayfields are in one of the wettest areas that could have been chosen since it is located on a peninsula between Gum Branch and Indian Field Swamps where all the water must run down the slope. It is an extremely wet area. His farm is wet, but The site is even wetter. It is impassable when you get a lot of rainfall. Its boggy and can't be planted. It is historically known as a wet site. Mr. McKinnon is concerned that if the drainage ditches are closed for the project the natural flow of water will be altered. He is also concerned about flooding during wet weather with all of the extra water sprayed on the site which is saturated a good part of the year. He is concerned about damage to Indian Field and Gum Branch Swamps from excess nitrogen as well as groundwater contamination. He thinks it is a very poorly planned site and that serious thought was not given to alternative sites. Mr. McKinnon attended all public meetings on the proposed project and communicated his concerns to the decisionmakers.

46. The maintenance of a good cover crop is essential to the proper functioning of a sprayfield. The cover crop is there to keep the soils in a semi-dry state allowing aeration of the soils for proper infiltration and treatment of the waste effluent. In addition the cover crop is essential for the uptake of nutrients in the waste which otherwise threaten to contaminate groundwater.

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law:

1. The Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction of the issuance of environmental permits and this case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(E) (Supp. 1994).

2. The proper standard of proof to be applied in a contested case conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act is a preponderance of the evidence. Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. Of Medical Examiners, Op. No. 24754 (S.C. Sup. Ct filed January 26, 1998) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 5 at 11); National Health Corp. v. South Carolina Dep't. of Health and Envtl. Control, 298 S.C. 373, 380 S.E.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1989).

3. Findings of fact based upon a "preponderance" of the evidence are those reflected by the greatest "weight, amount, credibility or truth" as reflected by the whole of the evidence before the court, or "evidence which convinces as to its truth." Frazier v. Frazier, 228 S.C. 149, 89 S.E.2d 225, 235 (1955); Nettles v. Nettles, 138 S.C. 318, 136 S.E. 297 (1927).

4. The trier of fact must weigh and pass upon the credibility of evidence presented. See S.C. Cable Television Ass'n. v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417 S.E.2d 586 (1992). The trial judge is in the best position to weigh witnesses' demeanor and veracity and to evaluate their testimony. See McAlister v. Patterson, 278 S.C. 481, 299 S.E.2d 322 (1982); Peay v. Peay, 260 S.C. 108, 194 S.E.2d 392 (1973); Mann v. Walker, 285 S.C. 194, 328 S.E.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1985); Marshall v. Marshall, 282 S.C. 534, 320 S.E.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1984).

5. "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of opinion or otherwise." Rule 702, SCRE.

6. An expert is granted wide latitude in determining the basis of his or her opinion. Where an expert's testimony is based upon facts sufficient to form the basis for an opinion, the trier of fact must weigh its probative value. Small v. Pioneer Machinery, Op. No. 2748 (S.C. Ct. App. filed November 17, 1997) (Davis Add. Sh. No. 32 at 7); Berkeley Elec. Coop. v. South Carolina Public Serv. Comm'n, 304 S.C. 15, 402 S.E.2d 674 (1991).

7. The trier of fact is not compelled to accept an expert's testimony, but may give it the weight and credibility he determined it deserves and may accept the testimony of one expert over another. S.C. Cable Television Ass'n. v. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 417 S.E.2d 586 (1992); Florence County Dep't of Social Servs. v. Ward, 310 S.C. 69, 425 S.E.2d 61 (Ct. App. 1992).

8. The issuance of permits to construct and operate a facility for the land application of wastewater effluent is governed by the South Carolina Pollution Control Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-10, et seq., which requires a permit issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control prior to construction of the facility and any discharge of waste from that facility to the environment. S.C. Code § 48-1-90 (1987). The discharge of sewage from a facility such as the proposed Dorchester facility poses the risk of significant environmental harm through contamination of the ground and surface and waters of the State.

9. Pursuant to the Pollution Control Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-30, DHEC has promulgated the State Land Application Permitting Regulation, R.61-9.505 which establishes the regulatory requirements which must be met in order for this permit to be issued and the discharge of sewage effluent to be allowed. DHEC's regulation recognizes the minimum site conditions necessary to assure the biological treatment of the waste in the soil by requiring that spray sites exhibit satisfactory soil conditions, Section 505.42(b)(4)(l), and by establishing maximum effluent application rates based upon the depth of the soils to seasonal high groundwater levels.

10. Table I at Section 505.42 of the DHEC Regulation establishes a minimum soil depth to seasonal high water of three feet. No effluent application is permitted unless certain specified conditions are met. Land application to soils with depth to seasonal high water of less than three feet may be permitted only where the wastewater effluent meets more stringent pretreatment standards known as tertiary treatment. Such required tertiary treatment standards include a 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) of 10mg/l, ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) of 2 mg/l and Nitrate (N) of 10 mg/l. Section 505.42(b)(4)(iii). The Preliminary Engineering Report for this facility, however, describes a secondary treatment facility which will only be designed to achieve a 30 mg/l treatment standard for BOD5 and suspended solids. Thus, for this permit to be approved it must be established that the proposed sprayfields meet a minimum soil depth to seasonal high water of three feet. The proposed site fails to meet this minimum regulatory requirement. Piezometer readings alone do not present sufficient reliable data for application rates of 1.4 and 1.75, the piezometer readings taken in conjunction with the soil types seems to indicate that the soils may be able to accommodate a limited amount of effluent discharge. The initial application rates proposed by Chris Forrest at DHEC are reasonable and should be imposed.

11. The DHEC regulation prohibits effluent application during periods when water is ponded, when there is standing water or when the site is flooded. Section 505.41(p)(2) and prohibits "runoff of any effluent, sludge, treated waste or mixture of pollutants outside the permitted area." Section 505.41(p)(6).

12. Ultimately, DHEC Regulations require that biological treatment of wastewater be effective by prohibiting the issuance of a land application permit "(W)hen the imposition of conditions cannot ensure compliance with applicable surface or groundwater quality requirements . . ." Section 505.4. Thus, where site and soil conditions preclude the effective treatment of a given wastewater effluent no land application permit may be approved.

13. The design of this facility will result in effluent application during periods when water is ponded, when there is standing water and when the site is flooded and that runoff of effluent outside the permitted area will occur, all contrary to these regulatory requirements. This will occur because the soil characterisitics in the sprayfield cannot process or contain the amount of effluent currently permitted for application. Therefore, the design must include storage capacity for a minimum of 60 days.

14. Section 505.4(e) also prohibits the issuance of a Land Application permit for an "activity which is inconsistent with a plan or plan amendment approved under section 208(b) of the CWA (federal Clean Water Act), unless the Department finds such variance necessary to protect public health, safety and welfare." Thus, the Department must determine whether the proposed activity is consistent with the applicable 208 plan. The activity proposed in the construction and operation of this proposed project is consistent with the 208 plan.

15. Section 208(b) of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 USC Sec 1288(B)(2)(e), requires planning to meet a community's wastewater treatment needs which must include assessing the cost of carrying out the plan, including the cost of the facility in question, and "the economic, social and environmental impact of carrying out the plan." It is this planning requirement which drives the evaluation contained in the project's Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), and the review and amendment of the 208 plan by the regional planning body (BCD-COG) which, in turn, must be reviewed by the Department for a consistency determination. The Dorchester PER, the BCD-COG and DHEC have adequately assessed the economic, social and environmental costs of this project and of available alternatives contrary to these requirements.

16. The assessment of such long term and cumulative impacts of this project is also required by the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act, S.C. Code §s 48-39-80(B)(11), and the Management Program of the Department which require that the impacts of this project be consistent with the State's Coastal Zone Management Program policies. South Carolina Wildlife Federation v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 371 S.E.2d 521, 296 S.C. 187, (S.C. 1988). S.C. Code § 48-39-80(B)(11), requires a determination that the proposed project is consistent with the policies of the South Carolina Coastal Management Program, including the protection of sensitive and fragile areas from inappropriate development and the protection, maintenance and improvement of water quality particularly in areas of special resource value. The Act also requires evaluation of the possible long-range, cumulative effects of the project, when reviewed in the context of other possible development and the general character of the area and the extent and significance of the impact on the quality or quantity of valuable coastal resources including: the impact on unique natural areas, the destruction of endangered wildlife or vegetation, the degradation of existing water quality standards, the degradation of environmental quality and the interruption of existing public access to public recreation lands and the loss of historic or archeological resources. DHEC properly determined the consistency of this proposed permit with these policies and that the evidence establishes that the adverse impacts of this proposed project are not inconsistent with many of the policies and values identified in the Coastal Zone Management Program.

Based upon the foregoing Discussions, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby

ORDERED that DHEC No Discharge Permit ND0074713 for the proposed Upper Dorchester Wastewater Treatment Facility, authorizing the construction of a facility for the land application of sewage effluent, is modified to allow application of effluent at a rate of .50 inches per week on sprayfield #1 and 0.75 inches per week on sprayfield #2. DHEC shall determine the applicable number of gallons to be discharged at this rate.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge

March 5, 1999

Columbia, South Carolina.