ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) pursuant to the petition of Hattie M.
Loynes and Ruth A. Ladson. Petitioners requested a contested case hearing challenging the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control's (DHEC or Department) denial of their septic tank permit applications for Lots 2B and
2 C located on John G. Richards Road (SC Highway 97) in Kershaw County, South Carolina. A hearing was held on
October 2, 2002, at the offices of the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their credibility, taking into
consideration the burden of persuasion of the parties, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the
evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the Petitioners and the Department.
2. The properties that are the subject of this contested case are Lots 2B and 2C on John G. Richards Road (SC Hwy 97),
situated in Kershaw County, South Carolina. At the hearing, the Petitioners testified that the properties in question had
been in the family for years, and that the lots had recently been subdivided from a large tract of land owned by their mother.
Property owned by both their mother and brother in the area has been approved for a septic system.
3. Ms. Loynes filed her application for a Septic Tank System Permit on December 11, 2001, and Ms. Ladson filed her
application on January 27, 2002.
4. On January 8, 2002, two Department inspectors conducted a site assessment and took four soil borings on Ms. Loynes'
property. On January 17,18, February 5,14, and March 8, 2002, a Department supervisor, Mr. Broome, also inspected Ms.
Loynes' property and took eleven soil borings. He examined two backhoe pits that Ms. Loynes had excavated in an
attempt to find suitable soil for a septic tank system. As a result of his examination of these borings and the backhoe pits,
Mr. Broome ascertained that the soil conditions were not suitable for a septic tank. He notified Ms. Loynes of this decision
by letter dated March 11, 2002.
- Following this denial letter, Ms. Loynes requested that the Department reinspect
the property. After two Department employees inspected the property on April 16, 2002, they determined that the property
was not suitable for a conventional, alternative or experimental septic tank system. This decision was due to the seasonal
high water table, a layer of rock on the property, the size of the proposed location for a septic tank and the slope of the
property. The Department sent Ms. Loynes a letter outlining these findings, and she filed this contested case action.
- As for Ms. Ladson's property, her application was filed January 27, 2002. Two
Department employees went to Ms. Ladson's property on February 14, 2002 and took two soil borings. On February 21,
2002, two Department inspectors conducted a site assessment and took six borings. On March 8, 2022, a Department
Supervisor and an inspector returned to the site and took four more borings. As a result of all of these borings, the
Department determined that the site was not suitable for an individual Sewage Treatment and Disposal System and notified
Ms. Ladson of this determination by letter. By letter dated March 25, 2002, Ms. Ladson requested that the Department re-inspect the property. On April 16, 2002, the Department conducted its reinspection, and took additional soil borings. By
letter dated April 17, 2002, the Department notified Ms. Ladson that the property was not suitable for a conventional,
alternative or experimental septic tank system. This decision was due to the seasonal high water table, the restrictive
horizons of the property and the excessive slope of the property. Ms. Ladson also requested a contested case hearing. The
cases of Ms. Loynes and Ms. Ladson were consolidated by Order of this Court on August 12, 2002.
- Specifically, DHEC's findings were that the lots had a seasonal high water table
of less than twelve inches, along with rock under the soil. In addition, a gully or ravine ran through both lots, which created
a steep enough slope to preclude using some of the more experimental types of septic systems. Although some of the
borings taken on both properties initially appeared suitable for the installation of a shallow modified or deep alternative
system, the suitable areas were too small to support a septic tank system, and the slope of the land would make such a
system ineffective.
8. Therefore, I find that although the two adjoining lots may have septic tank systems; unfortunately, because of the soil
conditions upon the Petitioners' property, no individual septic tank systems currently exist that could be installed on these
lots which would meet the requirements of the septic tank regulations, 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-56 (1976), or statutes,
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 44-55-610 through 44-55-860 (1976 & Supp. 2000).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, the Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction to conduct
contested case hearings concerning matters governing individual sewage treatment and disposal systems. See S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 2000).
2. In weighing the evidence and deciding a contested case on the merits, this Court must make findings of fact and
conclusions of law by a preponderance of the evidence. Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 329
S.C. 371, 496 S.E.2d 17 (1998). Furthermore, the burden of proof rests upon the Petitioners in this case. Id.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 44-1-140(11) (1976 & Supp. 2000) provides the authority for DHEC to propose regulations relating to
septic tank systems. Pursuant to that authority, 24A S.C. Code Ann. 61-56 (1976) was promulgated which governs
individual waste disposal systems and the issuance of permits for those systems commonly referred to as septic tank
systems.
4. Before a septic tank permit will be granted, the proposed site must meet standards set by DHEC. 24A S.C. Code Ann.
Regs. 61-56 § V(A) (1976). Where a conventional septic tank system is not feasible, DHEC may allow an alternate system
for the treatment of sewage, as long as the alternative system is within standards established by DHEC. 24A S.C. Code
Ann. Regs. 61-56 §§ VI(B) & VII(C) (1976). However, for a conventional system, there must be a twenty-nine inch water
table. This depth provides twenty-three inches for the system and a six inch buffer area, so that the maximum seasonal
high water table for the proposed site must be at least six inches below the bottom of the proposed soil absorption trenches
or alternate system. 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-56 § V(B) (1976). The Department found the site's seasonal high water
table to be generally less than twelve inches.
In addition to the water table requirements, DHEC regulations require that the depth to rock and other restrictive horizons
must be greater than one foot below the bottom of the absorption trenches or alternate system. 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
61-56 § V(C) (1976). In other words, the bottom of the absorption trenches must be at least 12" above any restrictive soils
such as clay or rock. DHEC's evaluations of the Petitioners' property revealed the existence of heavy bands of rock
underlying a large portion of the property. Therefore, DHEC properly concluded that the property does not meet the
minimum conditions for an individual sewage treatment and disposal system under Regulation 61-56.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the septic tank permit applications of Petitioners Hattie M. Loynes and Ruth A. Ladson
are denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
Carolyn C. Matthews
Administrative Law Judge
January 15, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
