PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CHARLESTON. Complainant, Defendant.

Transcription

1 , PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON c Entered: November CASE NO WS-C J. H. KNISELL, 2213 Airwick Avenue, Morgantown, Monongalia County, V. MORGANTOWN UTILITY BOARD, a municipal corporation, Complainant, Defendant. RECOMMENDED DECISION On April 30, 1992, J. H. Knisell, 2213 Airwick Avenue, Morgantown, Monongalia County, filed a duly verified formal complaint against the Morgantown Utility Board, a public utility. As set forth in the complaint, Mr. Knisell is the owner of property at Lot 15 in the South Saberton Subdivision of Morgantown, Monongalia County. Mr. Knisell alleged that water and sewer service had been previously provided to location from 1967 through He contended that service to the property had been deactivated from 1985 through Mr. Knisell contends that he requested that sewer service to his property be reactivated in The Complainant alleges that water and sewer lines serving the property had been eliminated, without his knowledge or consent. Therefore, he contended that sewer service to the property had been abandoned by the Morgantown Utility Board without notice or opportunity to make alternate arrangements for disposal. He also contended that the City informed the Complainant that he is to bear the cost of making services available to him in the future if he is to seek and obtain water service from the Morgantown Utility Board. By Order entered on April 30, 1992, the Morgantown Utility Board was required to either satisfy the complaint or submit a written response within ten (10) days after receiving a copy of the complaint and a copy of the Commission's Order by certified mail. By Answer filed on May 10, 1992, the Morgantown Utility Board responded that it could find no record that the property in question had ever received service from the Morgantown Utility Board prior to It did find records that the Complainant was a customer at the location in question for 30 days in The Morgantown Utility Board contended that m OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION m

2 the sanitary service line serving the property in question was laid by some unknown party and connected a point at to a sanitary sewer line which was owned and operated a by developer of the Hope Garden Subdivision prior to construction of Route 48. Route 48 was constructed during the period of 1972 through During construction, the interceptor sewer line serving the area was relocated a to new location which is about 2.5 feet abovethecomplainant'sserviceline.themorgantownutilityboard contended that the Complainant's sanitary sewer line was not connected t an interceptor which was operated by the Morgantown Utility Board. The Morgantown Utility Board also contended that the Complainant's service line should not be permitted to connect to the Board's facilities becau it does not comply with the Public Service Commission's rules and regu tions in several respects. Further, the Morgantown Utility Board contended that it is impossible for sewage to flow from the Complainant's private line by gravity into the Morgantown Utility Board's existing se interceptor. Therefore, the Morgantown Utility Board contended that a new service line would have to be installed from a point under a trailer located on the Complainant's property to the present interceptor, in o to have gravity flow. The Morgantown Utility Board contended that water and sewer services were terminated to the dwelling on 15 Lot on August 5, ~1985, at the request of the person occupying the property, and no reque for reconnection had been made until While the Morgantown Utility board established a water meter at the property on May 28, 1991, water service could not be provided to the property until the problem regard lsewage service at the property could be resolved. The Morgantown Utility Board has proposed that the Complainant be treated a as new customer, and that the Complainant bear the cost and expense of installing a new 6-inch main line extension to serve his property, at an estimated cost $2,250. of By Initial Staff Memorandum filed on May 6, 1992, Commission Staff represented that the complaint would require a field investigation prior to recommendation. At this time, Commission Staff has yet to a make final recommendation in this case. On May 14, 1992, the Commission referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Law Judges for processing, and mandated that an Administrative Law Judge's Decision be rendered on or before 23, November By Order entered on June 22, 1992, this matter was scheduled for hearing to be conducted on Monday, August 10, 1992, in the Council Chambers, City Building, 389 Spruce Street, Morgantown, West Virginia, beginning at 1:00 p.m. The hearing commenced as scheduled. The Complainant in this case, J. H. Knisell, was represented by John Angotti, Esquire; Morgantown Utility Board was represented by Kenneth E. Kincaid, Esquire; and Commission Staff was represented by Cass Toon, Esquire. The following individuals provided testimony during the course of hearing: J. H. Knisell, the Complainant; Michelle Neville, daughter of the Complainant; I SERVICE PUBLIC COMMISSION -2-

3 Scott Wright, an engineering technician for the Morgantown Utility Board; Thomas Urquhart, General Manager for the Morgantown Utility Board; and Ingrid Ferrell, an engineer with the Public Service Commission's Water & Sewer Section. At the conclusion of the hearing in this case, all parties agreed t uaive briefing, and the matter was submitted for a decision upon receipt of the transcript. EVIDENCE The essential facts in this case are not in substantial dispute. Mr. Knisell is the owner of property at 15 Lot in the South Saberton Subdivision of Morgantown, Monongalia County. Mr. Knisell had a trailer placed on that lot sometime prior to The mailing address for Lot 15 is 2286 AirwickAvenue.Thattrailerreceivedsewerservicefromthe Morgantown Sanitary Board, the predecessor of the Morgantown Utility Board, at least from 1976 to (Tr., pp , 67-68). The exact date that sewer service was instituted is not clear from the record. Mr. Knisell rented the trailer to various people or allowed members of his family to stay at the trailer for extended of periods time. While those individuals were in the trailer, they requested and obtained water and/or sewer service to the trailer in their own name. (Tr., pp , 15, 38, 43-46, 50-60, 62, 66-67, 84-87). Mr. Knisell believed that sewer service was first provided to the trailer in (Tr., pp. 12, 34). After a review of the Morgantown Utility Board's billing records, Mr. Urquhart was able to confirm that water service was activated Lot to 15 on April 26, 1967, when a Mr. Charles Reseter requested service. However, he could not find evidence of sewer service being provided by the Sanitary Board to that same lot until April of At that time, the City discovered that private sewer connection existed between an eightinch sanitary sewer line owned by the City of Morgantown along Minolas Street. Thereafter, the City began billing and collecting sewer charges from the residents of Lot 15. (Tr., pp , , 191, ). Service to this address was terminated in 1985 after Mr. Knisell informed the Morgantown Utility Board that the trailer was vacant and in use. (Tr., pp. 21, 29, 37-38, 60, 90). Between 1985 and 1991, the sewer service to Mr. Knisell's property remained inactive. Mr. Knisell had that trailer removed in 1990, and in 1991, Mr. Knisell and his daughter placed a larger trailer on that same lot. The internal plumbing of the new trailer was to tie into the preexisting service line that was already in place on the property. (Tr., pp. 14, 24, 33, 69-77, 88-89, 91-93). Mr. Knisell was going to allow his daughter and her husband to reside at that trailer, and they made a formal request for sewer service at that address on May 28, (Tr., pp. 90, 175). When Mr. Knisell and his daughter attempted to connect the new trailer to the preexisting sewer line on the property, they could not the old service line. The Morgantown Utility Board was called out to PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION -3-

4 ~ ). find the line. When the line was found, it was determined that the line was crushed and blocked in places, and the main line had been severed. (Tr., pp , 94). Upon receipt of the request for water and sewer service to the new trailer on Lot 15, Mr. Scott performed a field investigation on behalf of the Morgantown Utility Board. During the course of this field investigation, Mr. Scott discovered that the four-inch service line which had served the trailer in question was, in fact, connected to a deactivated eight-inch sanitary sewer line along Minolas Street which had been abandoned in place around 1972 during the construction of Interstate 68. That abandonment had been performed by the Department of Highways after it constructed a new eight-inch sewer main along Minolas Street a part as of the Interstate 68 construction. (See Defendant's Exhibit No. 1; Tr., pp. 27, 61, 93-94, ). At the time the Department of Highways relocated the existing main along Minolas Street and Morningside Way, it completed of all the service connections and service laterals which were to needed serve the Morgantown Sanitary Board's existing customers. Since the service line for Lot 15 was not tied into the new main, and there was no record of such sewer service on the Sanitary Board's books in 1972, Mr. Urquhart concluded that the Department of Highways must not have known of the service connection,to Mr. Knisell 'S property at the time the eight-inch main was relocated and the old main along Minolas Street was abandoned in place. (Tr., pp. After reviewing the relative elevations of Mr. Knisell's trailer and the existing eight-inch main along Minolas Street, the Morgantown Utili Board's engineers determined that it was impossible for sewage to flow b gravity from the original service line serving Mr. Knisell's property to the new main. Therefore, it proposed that a six-inch main be extended from the Morgantown Utility Board's three-inch main along Minolas Street to a point near Mr. Knisell's property, and that a new service lateral be constructed by Mr. Knisell across Lot 15 and Lot 14 to tie into the proposed main extension, which would terminate at the corner of Lot 14. (Tr., pp ). Mr. Knisell owns Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the area. (Tr., p. 8). A diagram of the existing and proposed service lines and connections is set forth on Defendant's Exhibit No. 1. Based upon the improper connection discovered by the City of Morgantown during its 1991 investigation, it was apparent that the sewage from Mr. Knisell's property on Lot 15 flowed into an abandoned eight-inch sewer line and was discharged directly over the hill for all periods in which the City of Morgantown had billed Mr. Knisell or his renters for sewer service. (Tr., pp , ). It is apparent that neither Mr. Knisell nor Morgantown Sanitary Board were aware that the sewage was not being properly accepted and introduced into the City of Morgantown's active distribution system until recently. (Tr., pp. 165, , 193). If this condition had been discovered while service was actively being rendered to Lot 15, the Morgantown Utility Board admits that it would have constructed the necessary extension and new service to lateral remedy the condition at the City's expense, with a possible right of COMMISSION SERVICE PUBLIC -4-

5 reimbursement from the Department of Highways. However, since service to Lot 15 had been terminated at the customer's request, the Morgantown Utility Board believed it was absolved of any responsibility to pay for the extension and service line replacements, and believed Mr. that Knisell should have to pay for the entire cost of providing an alternate servi lateral and to pay a share of the extension cost for the six-inch extension according to the cost-sharing provisions of 5.03 Rule of the Commission's Rules and Regulations for the Government of Sewer Utilities. (Tr., pp , 177, ). Mr. Knisell is of the opinion that the entire construction should be performed by the Morgantown Utility Board at the utility's expense, sin it merely replaced preexisting facilities which were used to serve the property. He also believed that the proposed routing would encumber an unreasonable portion of Lot 14, an adjacent lot owned by Mr. Knisell, since the Morgantown Utility Board proposes to have a new service line turn across and split 14 Lot before tying into the trailer site at Lot 15. (Tr. p. 40; April 30, 1992 complaint). Commission Staff maintained that alternate lines should be laid to serve Lot 15, at the Morgantown Utility Board's expense. (Staff Exhibit No. 1). DISCUSSION After a review of the evidence in this case and the positions of th parties, as presented at the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is of the opinion that the Morgantown Utility Board should be required provide the necessary extensions and alternate service lines which are required to render adequate service to Mr. Knisell's property at Lot 15, at the Utility's expense. Pursuant to West Virqinia Code S24-3-1, the public utility is required to establish and maintain adequate and suitable facilities to provide reasonable, safe and sufficient service to its customers. Rule 5.01 of the Commission's Rules and Requlations for the Government of Sew Utilities (Sewer Rules) provides as follows: (1) The collecting system of every sewerage utility shall be designed, constructed, maintained and operated so as to be able to receive and transport the sewage from its customers' outlets to its treatment plant without delay. * * * (4) Construction and Maintenance of Plant - Each utility shall at all times construct and maintain its entire plant and system in such condition that it will furnish safe, adequate and continuous service. (5) Inspection of Plant - Each utility shall inspect its plant and facilities in such manner and with such frequency as COMMISSION SERVICE PUBLIC -5-

6 may be necessary to insure a reasonably complete knowledge as to their conditions and adequacy at all times.... The Commission's rules and the statutory requirements place an affirmative duty on the Morgantown Utility Board to inspect, operate and maintain its facilities in a manner to insure that safe and adequate service is provided to all of its customers. Therefore, the Morgantown Utility Board had an affirmative obligation to inspect the service connection between Mr. Knisell's property and its existing facilities, to insure that sewage from that property was being properly discharged into an active sewer main along Minolas Street, and to remedy the deficiency when it was discovered. At the time the Morgantown Utility Board was billing Mr. Knisell or his renters for sewer service between 1976 and 1985, it is clear that the service being provided to that property was inadequate and unsanitary, since sewage from the property was being discharged into an abandoned main, unbeknownst to the parties. Once this condition was discovered, the Morgantown Utility Board had an obligation to remedy the situation. The Commission's rules and regulations also clearly provide that a utility customer is not expected to bear any portion of the cost of installing alternate mains or service pipe a utility's when facilities are relocated. Sewer Rule 5.04(14) of the Commission's Sewer Rules provides as follows: (14) The customer shall not be expected to make all changes in the customer's service pipe required on account of changes of grade, relocation of mains, and other causes not related to the customer, said changes shall be accomplished by the utility at its expense. The basic argument advanced by the Morgantown Utility Board to relieve it of its obligation to rectify the situation at its own expens is that Mr. Knisell's property was not being served an active as customer of the Morgantown Utility Board at the time the deficiency was discovered The ALJ finds that factor is not sufficient to absolve the Morgantown Utility Board of its financial responsibility to correct the deficiency. Mr. Knisell had exercised his right to request discontinuance of service at Lot 15, pursuant to Rule 4.04 of the Commission's Sewer Rules. The subsequent reactivation of that account would have been a simple matter, except for the fact that the Morgantown Utility Board discovered that prior service had been inadequate. Therefore, regardless of whether Mr. Knisell requested activation of that account in six days or six years, existing facilities should have been adequate and available to render service to his property. Since the hidden defect which prevented the service's safe and adequate reconnection was present when his account deactivated, the utility's obligation to remedy the defect should remain the same. In consideration of the above, the ALJ finds it reasonable and appropriate to direct the Morgantown Utility Board to perform the necessary main extension and the construction of an alternate service line to COMMISSION PUBLIC SERVICE -6-

7 serve Mr. Knisell's property at Lot 15, at the Morgantown Utility Board's expense. If possible, the service line serving Mr. Knisell's property should not cross Lot 14, to more fully comply with the provisions of Rule 5.04(5) of the Commission's Sewer Rules. However, since the preexisting service line serving Lot 15 crossed both Lots 14 and 15, the ALJ shall permit the customer service lateral to cross both lots if that routing is necessary to be able to transport sewage by gravity from the trailer to the extended main. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Morgantown Sanitary Board, the predecessor of the Morgantown Utility Board, provided public utility sewer service a to trailer on Lot 15 (2286 Airwick Avenue) from at least 1976 through (Tr., pp , , 191, ). 2. Sewer service was deactivated to the trailer in question in 1985, after the owner informed the Morgantown Utility Board that the trailer was vacant and not in use. (Tr., pp. 21, 29, 37-38, 60, 90). 3. The old trailer on Lot 15 was removed, and a new trailer was placed on the same site in (Tr., pp. 14, 24, 33, 88-89, 91-93). 4. After sewer service was requested for the new trailer, it was discovered that the preexisting sewer line serving 15 Lot was tied into a sanitary sewer main which had been deactivated and abandoned in place in 1972, during interstate construction. Therefore, the sewer main was unsuitable to provide sewer service to Lot 15 from 1972 to the present. l(tr., pp. 27, 61, 93-94, , , ). 5. The Morgantown Utility Board's active sewer main along Minolas Street, which must be used to properly provide sewer service 15, to is Lot at too high an elevation to accept sewage by gravity from the service lines and facilities which were previously utilized to serve Lot 15. Therefore, in order to provide safe and adequate service to 15, Lot a new service line and main extension must be constructed along a new route connecting the trailer's sewage outlet to the Morgantown Utility Board's active sewer main along Minolas Street. (Tr., pp ; Defendant's Exhibit No. 1). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Commission's rules and applicable statutory requirements place an affirmative duty on the Morgantown Utility Board to inspect, operate and maintain its facilities in a manner to insure that safe and adequate service is provided to all of its customers. Therefore, the Morgantown Utility Board had an affirmative obligation to inspect the service connection between Mr. Knisell's property and its existing facilities, to insure that sewage from that property was being properly discharged into an active sewer main along Minolas Street, and to remedy deficiency when it was discovered. (See, West Virginia Code S24-3-1; Sewer Rules 5.01(1)(3)(4)). L' COMMISSION SERVICE PUBLIC -7-

8 2. At the time the Morgantown Utility Board was billing Mr. Knisell or his renters for sewer service between 1976 and 1985, it is clear that the service being provided to that property was inadequate and unsanit since sewage from the property was being discharged into an abandoned main, unbeknownst to the parties. Once this condition was discovered, the Morgantown Utility Board had an obligation to remedy the situation. 3. The Commission's rules and regulations also clearly provide that II a utility customer is not expected to bear any portion of the cost of installing alternate mains or service pipe a utility's when facilities are relocated. (Sewer Rule 5.04(14)). II 4. Mr. Knisell had exercised his right to request discontinuance of service at Lot 15, pursuant to Rule 4.04 of the Commission's Sewer Rules. Regardless of whether Mr. Knisell requested activation of that account in six days or six years, the existing facilities should have been adequate and available to render service to his property. Since the hidden defect which prevented the service's safe and adequate reconnection was present when his account was deactivated, the utility's obligation to remedy the ldefect should remain the same. 5. In consideration of the above, the ALJ finds it reasonable and appropriate to direct the Morgantown Utility Board to perform the necessary main extension and the construction of an alternate service line to serve Mr. Knisell's property at Lot 15, at the Morgantown Utility Board's expense. 6. If possible, the service line serving Mr. Knisell's property should not cross Lot 14, to more fully comply with the provisions of Rule 5.04(5) of the Commission's Sewer Rules. However, since the preexisting service line serving Lot 15 crossed both Lots 14 and 15, the ALJ shall permit the customer service lateral to cross both lots if that routing necessary to be able to transport sewage by gravity from the trailer to the extended main. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the date this order becomes a final order of the Commission, the Morgantown Utility Board is hereby required to construct a main extension and new service line, at its own expense, which are required to adequately connect the trailer on Mr. Knisell's property at Lot 15, 2286 Airwick Avenue, to the Morgantown Utility Board's active sewer main along Minolas Street, consistent with the standards set forth herein. The Executive Secretary is hereby ordered to serve a copy of this order upon the Commission by hand delivery, and upon all of parties record by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested. Leave is hereby granted to the parties to file written exceptions supported by a brief with the Executive Secretary of the Commission within fifteen (15) days of the date this order is mailed. If exceptions are PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION -8-

9 filed, the parties filing exceptions shall certify to the Executive Secretary that all parties of record have served been said exceptions. If no exceptions are so filed this order shall become the order of the Commission, without further action or order, five (5) days following the expiration of the aforesaid fifteen (15) day time period, unless it is ordered stayed or postponed by the Commission. Any party may request waiver of the right to file exceptions to an Administrative Law Judge's Order by filing an appropriate petition in writing with the Secretary. No such waiver will be effective until approved by order of the Commission, nor shall any such waiver operate make any Administrative Law Judge's Order or Decision the order of the Commission sooner than five (5) days after approval of such waiver by the I Commission. RFW: mal Robert F. Williams Administrative Law Judge PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION -9-