ORDERS:
CONSENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WHEREAS, the Petitioner and Respondent have agreed to the resolution of the appeal of
Administrative Order 03-063-W; and,
WHEREAS, the Parties hereby consent to the dismissal of the appeal with prejudice upon the
accomplishment of the terms agreed to herein; and,
WHEREAS, in the interest of resolving this matter without the delay and expense of litigation,
Keowee Mountain Lakes Estates, Inc., agrees to the entry of this Consent Order and agrees that this
Consent Order shall be deemed an admission of Fact and Law only as necessary for enforcement of
this Order by the Department and in accordance with the Uniform Enforcement Policy or by the
Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD).
NOW THEREFORE, Petitioner and Respondent hereby agree that the following Stipulations
of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order finally resolve all matters regarding the above-referenced
Administrative Order.
STIPULATIONS OF FACT
1.Keowee Mountain Lakes Estates, Inc., owns and is responsible for development and
construction activity at Keowee Mountain Lakes Estates located in Pickens County, South Carolina.
2.NPDES Permit SCR100000 (SCR105818) allows the Petitioner to disturb land during
construction of the Site and to discharge storm water into waters of the State of South Carolina in
accordance with the monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in Parts I through IX
thereof.
3.On September 19, 2001, Department staff performed an inspection of the Site and
observed that the plans the Petitioner had submitted to obtain NPDES permit coverage were not
being followed and the following permit violations that needed to be corrected:
(a)needed to gravel front entrance; and
(b)needed to install silt fencing, check dams, and sediment traps according to approved plans.
Also, the Petitioner had allowed unauthorized discharges of sediment from unstabilized areas
of the Site to a stream and wetland area. A copy of the inspection report was mailed to the
Petitioner.
4.On October 15, 2001, Department staff performed a follow-up inspection of the Site
and observed that the plans the Petitioner had submitted to obtain NPDES permit coverage were not
being followed and the following permit violations that needed to be corrected:
(a)needed to install and maintain more check dams on both sides of the slope at the entrance; and
(b)needed to grass unstabilized areas.
Also, the Petitioner had allowed unauthorized discharges to waters of the State in that the silt
fencing was not secured, allowing sediment to discharge underneath and sediment had discharged
from the unstabilized areas of the Site and had entered a stream and wetland area. A copy of the
inspection report was mailed and faxed to the Petitioner.
5.On October 25, 2001, Department staff performed a follow-up inspection of the Site
and observed that the plans the Petitioner had submitted to obtain NPDES permit coverage were not
being followed and the following permit violations that needed to be corrected:
(a)needed to hydroseed disturbed areas; and
(b)needed to start documenting and have self-inspection reports available.
Also, the Petitioner had allowed unauthorized discharges to waters of the State in that
sediment had discharged from the unstabilized areas of the Site to a stream and wetland area. A copy
of the inspection report was mailed to the Petitioner.
6.On November 19, 2001, Department staff performed a follow-up inspection of the Site
and observed that the plans the Petitioner had submitted to obtain NPDES permit coverage were not
being followed by not having hydroseeding installed on the disturbed areas. Also, the Petitioner had
allowed unauthorized discharges to waters of the State in that the silt fencing was not secured,
allowing sediment to discharge underneath and sediment had discharged from unstabilized areas of
the Site and had entered a stream and wetland area. A copy of the inspection report was mailed to
the Petitioner.
7.On December 4, 2001, Department staff performed a follow-up inspection of the Site
and observed that the plans the Petitioner had submitted to obtain NPDES permit coverage were not
being followed by not having hydroseeding installed on disturbed areas. Also, the Petitioner had
allowed unauthorized discharges to waters of the State in that the silt fencing was not secured,
allowing sediment to discharge underneath and sediment had discharged from unstabilized areas of
the Site and had entered a stream and wetland area. A copy of the inspection report was mailed to
the Petitioner.
8.On March 7, 2002, Department staff performed a follow-up inspection of the Site and
observed that the plans the Petitioner had submitted to obtain NPDES permit coverage were not
being followed and the following permit violations that needed to be corrected:
(a)needed to properly maintain silt fencing, check dams, and sediment traps;
(b)needed to clean out sediment from the entrance area, cul-de-sac, and the areas in the back side of the Site; and
(c)rip-rap needed to be installed at two (2) of the stream crossings, silt fencing was in need of repair, and hydroseeding was needed according to plans.
Also, the Petitioner had allowed unauthorized discharges to waters of the State in that
sediment had discharged from unstabilized areas of the Site to a stream and wetland area. A copy
of the inspection report was mailed and faxed to the Petitioner.
9.On April 9, 2002, Department staff performed a follow-up inspection of the Site and
observed that the plans the Petitioner had submitted to obtain NPDES permit coverage were not
being followed and the following permit violations that needed to be corrected:
(a)corrections requested in the March 7, 2002 inspection had not been performed;
(b)entrance area and stream crossings needed to be graveled; and
(c)silt fencing and check dams had not been installed as specified in the plans.
Also, the Petitioner had allowed unauthorized discharges to waters of the State in that
sediment had discharged from unstabilized areas of the Site to a stream and wetland area. A copy
of the inspection report was mailed and faxed to the Petitioner.
10.On June 10, 2002, the Department held an enforcement conference with the Petitioner
via a telephone and in person with the Petitioner’s agents. The possible issuance of a Consent Order
containing a civil penalty was discussed.
11.On August 6, 2002, Department staff met with the Petitioner’s agents on-site and
performed an inspection. Department staff observed that none of the previous permit or discharge
violations had been corrected. A copy of the inspection report was mailed and faxed to the
Petitioner.
12.On September 23, 2002, Department staff performed a follow-up inspection of the
Site and observed that the plans the Petitioner had submitted to obtain NPDES permit coverage were
not being followed and the following permit violations that needed to be corrected:
(a)needed to properly maintain silt fencing, check dams, and sediment traps;
(b)needed to clean out sediment from the check dam in the entrance area; and
(c)rip-rap needed to be installed at two (2) of the stream crossings.
Also, the Petitioner had allowed unauthorized discharges to waters of the State in that
sediment had discharged from unstabilized areas of the Site to a stream and wetland area. A copy
of the inspection report was mailed and faxed to the Petitioner.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Stipulations of Fact, the Department reaches the following Conclusions
of Law:
1.The Petitioner violated Water Classifications & Standards, 25 S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
61-68(E)(5)(d) (Supp. 2002), and the Pollution Control Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 48-1-90(a) (1987),
in that it discharged sediment into waters of the State, in a manner other than in compliance with a
permit issued by the Department.
2.The Petitioner violated Water Pollution Control Permits, 24 S.C. Code Ann. Regs.
61-9.122.41(a) (Supp. 2002), in that it failed to comply with its plan made enforceable by Party VI.N
of NPDES Permit No. SCR100000.
3.The Pollution Control Act, S.C. Ann. § 48-1-330 (1987), provides for a civil penalty
not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per day of violation for any person violating the Act
or any rule, regulation, permit, permit condition, final determination, or Order of the Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, with the consent of the Parties, that Keowee
Mountain Lakes Estates, Inc., shall:
1.Within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of this Order, submit to the
Department a report, completed by and stamped by a State-registered professional engineer,
certifying that construction of the necessary storm water control devices is complete and in
accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
2.Within thirty (30) days of the date of execution of this Order, pay to the Department
a civil penalty in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty dollars
($25,750.00).
3.Pursuant to the consent of the Parties, this matter is hereby DISMISSED with
prejudice subject only to enforcement of the terms hereinabove by the Department or upon Petition
by the Department to the ALJD.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
November 18, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
