Opinion ID: 1420543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Buffer-Zone Requirements

Text: The Sextons' primary argument is that the proposed location for the sewage lagoons violates the buffer-zone requirements promulgated by the Department. These provisions establish distances that must be maintained between sewage treatment plants and occupied dwellings. As a guiding principle, thethe site should be as far as practicable from any present built-up[.] 64 W.Va. C.S.R. § 47-4-1.2. The regulations further provide that [a]erated lagoons shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from the nearest occupied structure. 64 W.Va. C.S.R. § 47-4-11.4.2. [3] The Sextons concede, as they must, that the proposed lagoons comply with the minimum mandates of 64 W.Va.C.S.R. § 47-4-11.4.2; however, they argue that this regulation merely identifies a starting point for assessing the proper location. In support of their argument, the Sextons direct our attention to the testimony of Harry Pitts, a professional engineer retained by them. Mr. Pitts testified that the minimum buffer-zone requirement was far from adequate because of the type of system proposed by the District and because of the topography of the surrounding area. Mr. Pitts concluded that [t]he nature of the collection system ... makes the potential for serious nuisance and hazardous conditions much greater, perhaps a certainty as compared to a more conventional plant receiving and treating fresh sewage. The District counters by highlighting the numerous weaknesses in Mr. Pitts' testimony. Although Mr. Pitts has an extensive background in sanitary sewer design, he admitted during cross-examination that he was not familiar with the type of system proposed and that the first time he reviewed the plans for the proposed plant was on the day of the hearing. Moreover, Mr. Pitts confessed that he had failed to contact officials at the Page/Kincaid Public Service District in Fayette County where the same treatment design was already in use. Indeed, Mr. Pitts conceded that he had made no effort to determine whether the Page/Kincaid facility experienced odor problems. The District offered the expert testimony of Paul Ghosh, the District's design engineer. Mr. Ghosh testified that the collection system proposed was in compliance with all federal and state standards and that the system's design had been modified to avoid the odor concerns about which Mr. Pitts had speculated. Mr. Ghosh concluded that the proposed system and site location were the most cost-effective way to deal with the waste treatment problem in Jackson County. Fred Hypes, an engineering supervisor with the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR), also testified on behalf of the District. Mr. Hypes stated that the aerated lagoons being proposed were a common treatment technology that has been used throughout the State of West Virginia. Mr. Hypes further explained that the design of the proposed facility was identical to the Page/Kincaid Public Service District and he characterized it as very, very conservative. Finally, Mr. Hypes warned that DNR strongly endorsed the project as proposed and that the failure of the District to secure a certificate of public convenience and necessity would likely cause DNR to revoke grant funds. In Broadmoor/Timberline Apartments v. Public Service Commission, 180 W.Va. 387, 376 S.E.2d 593 (1988), we reviewed an order of the PSC in a case involving the jurisdiction of the PSC, and, in Syllabus Point 1, we stated our general standard for review: `[A]n order of the public service commission based upon its finding of facts will not be disturbed unless such finding is contrary to the evidence, or is without evidence to support it, or is arbitrary, or results from a misapplication of legal principles. United Fuel Gas Company v. The Public Service Commission, 143 W.Va. 33 [99 S.E.2d 1 (1957) ].' Syllabus Point 5, in part, Boggs v. Public Service Comm'n, 154 W.Va. 146, 174 S.E.2d 331 (1970). Applying this standard, we conclude that the PSC did not err in finding that the proposed site satisfied the buffer-zone requirements. All the parties acknowledge that the distance of the proposed lagoons from the Sextons' home is approximately 430 feet, which exceeds the minimum buffer-zone requirement of 300 feet. In deciding whether, in this case, the distance should be greater than the minimum requirement, the PSC relied on ample evidence in the record to support the District's claim that the proposed location is both cost-effective and environmentally sound; thus, we are compelled to defer to the expertise and judgment of the PSC. Accordingly, we find the PSC's ruling that the project complies with the buffer-zone requirement is supported by substantial evidence, and we find no error. B.