ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 15,
1977
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
Complainants,
v.
)
PCB 76-70
VILLAGE OF CRAINVILLE, ROBERT CALLAGHAN
and RUTH CALLAGHAN d/b/a FREEBURG
CONSTRUCTION CO.,
and GEORGE KNOSTMAN,
JR.
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Werner):
I.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
This matter comes before the Board upon the March
8,
1976
Complaint of the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) against
the Village of Crainville
(Crainville)
charging violations of its
Construction Permit and thereby Section 12(b)
of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Act), Section 12(c)
of the Act, and Rule 1201 of
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution and thereby Section 12(a)
of the Act.
An Amended Complaint was filed March 22,
1977, adding Robert
Callaghan and Ruth Callaghan d/b/a Freeburg Contruction Co. and
George Knostman,
Jr. as Respondents.
A hearing was held on July
14, 1977.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November
5,
1968,
an agreement was signed for the con-
struction of additions
to the water and sewer system and improvements
to the sewage treatment plant
(STP) owned and operated by Crainville,
located
in Williamson County,
IllinoiS.
Frceburj Construction Co.
was the general contractor, and engineering services were provided
by George Knostman,
Jr. and Associates.
An Agency Construction
Permit was received by Crainville
in l970~. Construction began
September,
1970 and terminated on January
1,
1972.
Construction did
not proceed according to the plans and specifications approved by
the Agency.
Sanitary sewer lines and manholes were installed at
different locations and sewer lines were of a smaller size than
permitted.
Also, some manhole cover details were installed below
street level.
One of four planned lift statiqns was installed at
a different location than permitted,
and a fifth lift station, not
planned at all, was constructed.
All five lift stations were in-
stalled with equipment differing from that shown on the plans.
?9
Installation of chlorination equipment as well as fencing and
seeding at the Crainville STP was not compieted.
The foregoing
deviations,
together with lack of proper controls, resulted in the
repeated breakdown of pumps at several lift stations
(causing
sewage back—ups), overloading of Cell #2 of a two-cell treatment
lagoon at the Crainville STP,
and discharge of
a poor quality
effluent from the STP.
In addition,
the Agency will not grant a
permit for connections
to the
6” gravity sewer which was installed.
The Agency was notified of these deviations
in
a 1973 study by
John
H. Crawford,
P,E., but did not approve the changes.
Freeburg Construction Co. also inst~l1eda sewer extension
to the east of Crainville to serve a new snbdivision
(R.
136)
.
The
sewer extension, which connects into the Crainville ~TP, was requested
and paid for by the owner of the subdivision property and was built
without plans
or an Agency Construction Permit
(R.l9-20,136-137)
The Crainville STP serves a population of under 10,000.
Except for a period of less than six months, the facility has not
been operated by a certified Class
4 operator since
1974.
III,
DEVIATION FROM APPROVED PLANS
Standard Condition #2 of the Construction Permit awarded to
Crainville prohibits any deviation from approved plans unless
revised plans are submitted for Agency approval.
No submission
of revised plans or specifications occured during the period of
construction.
As permit holder and owner of the completed sewer
system and STP, Crainville is responsible for failure to comply
with Standard Condition
#2, not the contractor or engineer.
The
Village cannot delegate its responsibility
to follow approved plans,
especially since the Village Board of Crainville either approved
the deviations
(P.85)
or caused them through purchases of non-specified
equipment
(R.25).
Further, the contractor and engineer are hired
merely
to do specific work:
the ultimate responsibility to obey
the Act remains with the owner.
Therefore, we find Crainville
in
violation of Section 12(b)
of the Act and dismiss Count
I of the
Amended Complaint as to all other Respondents.
The Board has considered the Section
33(c)
factors
in assessing
a penalty
for this violation.
Respondents have the burden of
producing evidence concerning these factors.
Processing
and I3ooks,
Inc.
v,
Pollution Control Board,
64
Ill.
2nd 68,
351 N.E.
2nd 865
(1976).
~
of injury include sewage backups,
poor quality effluent being discharged
from the Crainville STP,
and damage
to
the need for a viable permit system.
Second, the
sewers and STP clearly have great~social and economic value, di-
minished somewhat by the failure to construct the system in a manner
acceptable under the Act and Regulations.
Third, the suitability
of the site is beyond question,
Finally, compliance by Crainville
is both technically feasible and economically reasonable.
We take
note of the small population of the Village and its current financial
difficulties.
Based on these factors,
the Board imposes no money
penalty for this violation.
~97—
iZ~t~
~26-~O~
IV. SEWER EXTENSION
In
1971,
a sewer extension and manhole located outside the
village limits of Crainville
(R.136) was constructed by Freeburg
Construction Co.
Crainville was involved in this construction only
to the extent that
they instructed Freeburg Construction Co. as to
the placement of the sewer line and manhole
(R.19).
George
Knostman,
Jr. was not involved in any way
(R.20).
Freeburg Construction Co.
should not be liable for failure to obtain
a permit.
The owner of
the subdivision property, the proper
permit holder,
is alone
respon-
sible.
The record shows that Mr. Merkin, the owner of
the subdivision,
was on notice of his duty to obtain Agency permits as he assured
Crainville and Robert Callaghan that he had made the necessary
arrangements with the authorities to consturct and operate the sewer
extension and manhole
(R.136-l37).
Therefore., we find the Respondents
not in violation of Section 12(c)
of the Act and dismiss Count
11
of
the Amended Cothplaint.
V. STP OPERATOR
The Agency requires the Crainville STP to have a certified
Class
4 operator.
Crainville has failed to provide a competent
operator from September 1,
1974 up to the filing of this Complaint,
except for a period of less than six months.
We find Crainville
in violation of Rule 1201 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution and Section
12(a)
of the Act.
The Board has considered the Section
33(c)
factors in finding, and assessing a penalty for, this violation.
In addition to the evidence discussed previously
(supra, p.2),
we take note of Crainville’s efforts
to obtain a competent operator
(R.l65).
Based on these factors, the Board imposes no money
penalty for this violation.
VI,
“AS-BUILT” PLANS
In order to cease and desist from a violation of Section
12(b)
of the Act, Crainville must submit “as-built” plans
for
Agency approval.
We note that there was
some controversy as to
whether the Crawford study was a submission of “as—built” plans
(R.88,
143).
The Agency has sole authority to determine whether
any documents submitted constitute “as—built” plans.”
This Opinion and Order constitute the findings of fact
and conclusions of law of the Board.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Crainville
is
in violation of Section
12(b)
of the Act.
2.
Crainville is
in violation of Section 1201 of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution and Section 12(a)
of the Act.
?~7
//-~
~
—4—
3.
Crainville shall cease and desist from all violations
of the Act and Regulations found herein, within six
months
of the date of
tki~Ls
Order
or obtain a variance
therefrom.
4.
Crainville shall apply for all necessary Agency permits
within 60 days of the date of this Order.
Mr.
James Young abstained.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
/~‘~‘
day of
~
,
19
7 7
by
a
vote
of~-~
.
~
Illinois Pollutià~-~ontro1Board
26-602--
~-;~7
~T::)~
~
~