Despite December 7, 2011,headlines to the contrary, I’m not sure the Richmond City Council is ready to part company with Veolia, the multinational company that operates the wastewater plant and maintains the collection system that serves 60% of Richmond households.
On December 6, on a split vote, the City Council majority voted to spend up to $80,000 on Carollo Engineering (http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/archives/31/cc11Dec06.pdf) to “evaluate options related to the wastewater treatment system Infrastructure: and to “consider taking final action on the Veolia contract on or after the February 7, 2012 City Council meeting” Meanwhile, staff is authorized “to enter into negotiations with Veolia over the terms of a separation agreement.”
February 7, 2012, came and went without even a murmur about Veolia. The City Manager’s Office says we can expect the long awaited report next week (May 15).
Meanwhile, a recent uptick in unexplained H2S releases, including a spike on may 6 that set off alarms, has reignited a war of words between Veolia management and its Point Richmond neighbors. When the alarm was triggered at 7:09 AM at Washington School, the wastewater treatment plant was unstaffed, contrary to a pledge made previously by Veolia.
The relationship between the City and Veolia has been an often rocky one, but the news is not all bad. Until the odor issues largely caused by digester failures in 2010 and 2011 became the focus of community criticism, the previous low point was a City investigation that showed Veolia had faked inspection of the collections system and collected payment for services they had not performed. That dispute was settled in December 2009 with an agreement for Veolia to pay the City of Richmond $1,992,260.
On the other hand,
- Veolia Water has been operating in Richmond since 2002.
- Veolia employs 30 people in Richmond.
- The Veolia Richmond facility serves approximately 68,000 residents.
- Veolia manages sewer collection for the City of Richmond through 185 miles of underground pipes and the City's 94-mile storm water drainage system.
- Veolia has helped the City of Richmond reduce overflows by 80% in the last four years.
- Veolia processes a "dry weather average flow" of 6.5 million gallons of wastewater for the City of Richmond each day.
- Veolia has increased the facility's permit compliance record from 67% to 97% since taking over the 50+ year old plant.
- Veolia has implemented $31,677,772 in capital improvements to the City of Richmond's sewer collection system.
- Veolia has implemented $14,492,039 in capital improvements to the City of Richmond's wastewater treatment facility.
- Veolia has implemented $1,676,335 in capital improvements to the City of Richmond's storm drain system
- Veolia contributes nearly $20,000 annually to community programs in Richmond.
- Veolia's contract projected savings for taxpayers over the life of the contract is $75 million.
I did notice that Veolia’s reports are up to date at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2326, and that were no odor complaints in March, 1 odor complaint in February and 1 odor complaint in January. Presumably, there will be multiple odor complaints in May. According to its contract, Veolia is supposed to provide monthly reports, but the reports provided do not have the content required by the contract. See below:
From Schedule 2.4.1
2.4.1 Monthly Operating Reports
The Company shall prepare the monthly operating reports (Monthly Reports) summarizing the operations of the facility for submission to the San Francisco Bay regional Water Control Board (“RWQCB”). The Monthly Reports shall be prepared by the 15th or other date as applicable, of every month for the previous month of facility operation. The Monthly reports shall be submitted to the City for review prior to submission to the RWQCB. The Company shall prepare the Monthly Reports in a format subject to approval by the City and RWQCB. The Monthly reports shall include data pertaining to the Facility performance, analyses required by the NPDES permit, wastewater flows, and other pertinent information. At a minimum, the Company shall include the following data in the monthly reports and any other information in compliance with the RWQCB requirements:
- Summary of odor complaints and action taken
The Company shall prepare an annual operation and maintenance report (Annual report). This report shall include detailed information about the completed Billing Year’s operation and maintenance of the Facility and current Facility conditions. The Report shall include, at a minimum:
- An assessment of the condition of the facility, details of any modifications made (design details and as-built drawings) and an analysis of the effectiveness of any repairs, replacements, or upgrades.
- A summary of the information provided in the monthly reports.
- A summary of environmental, safety, and regulatory compliance.
- An assessment of outstanding issues, including any recommendations for changes to plant operations.
- Operating budget summary.
- The annual Report shall be finalized by the Company and issues approximately two weeks prior to the annual Facility inspection.
I can’t help but also be critical of Richmond City staff for not requiring Veolia to conform to the terms of its contract with respect to reporting requirements. The fact is that we seldom hear anything from staff regarding Veolia and the wastewater plant.
As I have noted many times before, West Contra Costa Wastewater District, which serves the portions of Richmond not served by Veolia and Stege sanitary District, has an entire board devoted to their operation with monthly meetings. As the governing board for Richmond Sanitary District #1, we have the same responsibility, yet we have no reports, discussion or action items unless something goes terribly wrong. I have asked for monthly reports to the City Council with an opportunity for questions and discussion so that at least it looks like we are interested, but it never seems to happen.
I noted that in March, there was one NPDES violation and three blending events involving a total of some 54 million gallons. This kind of information should be shared with the City Council.
In the meeting we had November 19, 2011, Veolia representatives described a situation where, with respect to odor control, they have been doing the best they could within the constraints and challenges of an old plant, and that certain capital improvements would have to be approved and funded by the City in order to effect a significant reduction in odors.
While it may be true that certain additional capital improvements are required to further reduce routine odor releases, it appears to me that Veolia is substantially out of compliance with its contractual obligations with respect to odor control, based on the City of Richmond Wastewater Treatment Facility Capital Improvements, Operations, Maintenance and Management Agreement by and between The City of Richmond, California and US Filter Operating Services, Inc. Veolia is the successor to US Filter and is bound by this agreement.
The provisions of the agreement relating to odor are excerpted at the end of this email.
First of all, it is Veolia’s duty to “…use reasonable efforts consistent with industry practices and the Agreement to control odors from the Facility so that odors at the site boundary do not prompt public complaints,” and it shall be Veolia’s goal shall be to achieve zero odor incidents, and the Company, in conjunction with the City, shall develop a program that identifies procedures for certifying and documenting odor complaints, and shall establish procedures to address recurrent failures of the odor control program.”
If Veolia finds that capital improvements are needed to effectively meet its goal of “zero odor incidents,” it is Veolia’s duty to bring that to the attention of the City in its Annual Report. I don’t recall that such information has been provided to the City, and certainly not to the City Council, which acts as the governing board for the operation of the Wastewater Plant and its collection system.
The contractually required response system for odor complaints has never been implemented by Veolia. Records of calls and responses has never been kept in the details required by the contract, or at least never provided to the City. I don’t recall that a “written report on the odor complaint investigation shall be sent out to the complainant” as required by the contract. Although 2.2.4.2 requires Veolia to “consider installing capital Equipment to address odors, in lieu of or in addition to proposed adjustments to current operations and maintenance practices,” Veolia has not taken the initiative on capital equipment and instead blames the City for handing it an old plant.
The contract requires when adjustments cannot be made to eliminate odors, “reasonable efforts to determine and implement, at the sole cost and expense of the Company, a corrective action plan within a reasonable time period. If the initial H2S levels are below the threshold levels, and the odor complaints persist, the City may request the Company to perform odor evaluations. Should the evaluation results indicate the presence of odors above the detection threshold levels, then the Company shall conduct and pay for such odor evaluations and shall use all reasonable efforts to determine and implement a corrective action plan in a timely manner, subject to the City’s review and comment.”
Exhibit A, 1.1.1, requires 24 hour toll free hotline (manned by the operator on call) published and posted. Since Veolia does not staff the plant on nights and weekends, there is no “operator on call” to man the hotline. Instead, calls are routed to a remote call center where any response is delayed, usually beyond the time that odors are present due to shifting winds and the ephemeral nature of odors in the Point Richmond microclimate.
Regarding the digesters, which have been the focus of the most serious incidents since the fall of 2010, the original contract, Schedule 12.3, item 3, required rehabilitation of both digesters 1 and 2, but this has never been done. Veolia blames the City for this failure instead of taking responsibility.
Early on, Veolia committed to complete the necessary capital projects to enable the plant to function properly:
- “We knew the plant needed some work and we’re prepared to do that”, said James Good. (VP Veolia Water) WCT 4-23-02
- Critics insist USFilter is underestimating the need for capital improvements but ( James) Good (VP Veolia) called that a nonissue. WCT 4-23-02
- “We feel very strongly that our capital program does the trick”, he (James Good, VP Veolia) said. WCT 5-16-02
City of Richmond Wastewater Treatment Facility Capital Improvements, Operations, Maintenance and Management Agreement by and between The City of Richmond, California and US Filter Operating Services, Inc., From Schedule 2, Pages A-9 and A-10
2.2.4 Odor Control Facilities
The Company shall use reasonable efforts consistent with industry practices and the Agreement to control odors from the Facility so that odors at the site boundary do not prompt public complaints. The Company’s goal shall be to achieve zero odor incidents, and the Company, in conjunction with the City, shall develop a program that identifies procedures for certifying and documenting odor complaints, and shall establish procedures to address recurrent failures of the odor control program. Additional provision with respect to odor control facilities and their operations are contained in Exhibit A and attached hereto. The Company shall be responsible for optimizing the operation and future odor control equipment so that it performs to its designed capacity and capability.
2.2.4.1 Odor Hotline
The City and Company currently share responsibility for responding to odor complaints. Both parties will respond to calls about odor complaints received through an “odor hotline.” The Company shall coordinate with the City to maintain the odor hotline and respond to customer complaints, as appropriate, by adjusting odor control equipment, and/or process operations to address such complaints and to reduce odors from the facility. The Company shall also maintain a record of the number of calls received and shall document the odor complaints using a log form similar to that used by the City. Such records shall be tabulated and charted in the Monthly reports, as defined in Schedule 2.4.1.
2.2.4.2 Response Plan
The Company shall establish a response plan based on the Facility’s current response procedures. The complainant should be contacted as soon as possible, at a reasonable time of day, and the site of the odor source visited to obtain more information on the location and characteristics of the odor complaints. The Company shall obtain hydrogen sulfide (H2S) measurements at the facility and at the location of the complaint using a hand held meter to establish the presence of odorous compounds at different locations in the Facility, including the wet stream and sludge handling processes, and the odor control system exhausts. The odor complaint log form should be completed, including wind speed and direction at time of the call, the status of process units, and action taken by the Company to rectify the odor complaints. A written report on the odor complaint investigation shall be sent out to the complainant.
If the results of the H2S monitoring and other investigations establish the continued presence of odorous compounds, then the Company shall (1) review and, as appropriate, adjust current operations and maintenance practices concerning odor control, and at its direction, subject to the provisions of the Agreement, consider installing capital Equipment to address odors, in lieu of or in addition to proposed adjustments to current operations and maintenance practices, and (2) in connection therewith, make reasonable efforts to determine and implement, at the sole cost and expense of the Company, a corrective action plan within a reasonable time period. If the initial H2S levels are below the threshold levels, and the odor complaints persist, the City may request the Company to perform odor evaluations. Should the evaluation results indicate the presence of odors above the detection threshold levels, then the Company shall conduct and pay for such odor evaluations and shall use all reasonable efforts to determine and implement a corrective action plan in a timely manner, subject to the City’s review and comment. The first phase of such corrective action plan shall include a reasonable time period for the Company to determine the cause of the odors.
From Exhibit A
- Wet Stream and Odor Control Treatment Facilities
Throughout the term of this agreement, USFOS will provide the following:
- Odor Hotline and Response Plan, including the following:
- 24 hour toll free hotline (manned by the operator on call) published and posted
- Immediate response to site of issue/complaint to identify odor sources and collect information.
- Analytical monitoring as necessary for identification of odor causing constituents at the site of complain/concern such as:
- Hydrogen sulfide gas
- Amines
- Methyl-mercaptans
- Incorporation of weather monitoring and correlation to odor issues (wind, temperature, humidity, etc.) into the Company’s SCADA system.
- Follow-up with report generation including a copy to the City.
- Practices to be followed to avoid odor issues will be:
- Keeping tankage not in use dry when possible.
- Applying water caps over residuals in open tanks when tanks cannot be kept dry.
- Using of a number of chemicals as either preventive or corrective measures dependent upon the chemical/chemistry of any possible odor issue.
- Performing of odor generating activities under weather conditions favorable to avoiding odor issues.
- Covering of the open top headworks wet well area with a simple structure to prevent the unregulated dispersal of fugitive odors and the installation of a small wet scrubber to maintain scrubbed ventilation through this enclosed area.
From Schedule 2.4.1
2.4.1 Monthly Operating Reports
The Company shall prepare the monthly operating reports (Monthly Reports) summarizing the operations of the facility for submission to the San Francisco Bay regional Water Control Board (“RWQCB”). The Monthly Reports shall be prepared by the 15th or other date as applicable, of every month for the previous month of facility operation. The Monthly reports shall be submitted to the City for review prior to submission to the RWQCB. The Company shall prepare the Monthly Reports in a format subject to approval by the City and RWQCB. The Monthly reports shall include data pertaining to the Facility performance, analyses required by the NPDES permit, wastewater flows, and other pertinent information. At a minimum, the Company shall include the following data in the monthly reports and any other information in compliance with the RWQCB requirements:
- Summary of odor complaints and action taken
The Company shall prepare an annual operation and maintenance report (Annual report). This report shall include detailed information about the completed Billing Year’s operation and maintenance of the Facility and current Facility conditions. The Report shall include, at a minimum:
- An assessment of the condition of the facility, details of any modifications made (design details and as-built drawings) and an analysis of the effectiveness of any repairs, replacements, or upgrades.
- A summary of the information provided in the monthly reports.
- A summary of environmental, safety, and regulatory compliance.
- An assessment of outstanding issues, including any recommendations for changes to plant operations.
- Operating budget summary.
- The annual Report shall be finalized by the Company and issues approximately two weeks prior to the annual Facility inspection.
Veolia will be leaving Richmond
Peaks in Hydrogen Sulfide are the reason for the foul odors in Richmond. Veolia erected three monitors around the plant to watch the levels of the gas in the neighborhood.
By: Wendi Jonassen | December 7, 2011 – 1:21 pm
After nine years of service, Veolia will began the process of terminating its 10-year contract with Richmond, which will start the search for a viable alternative for its wastewater management plan.
Residents in Richmond have voiced concerns about odor issues in relation to the plant, and Veolia cited a need for capital investment to improve the condition of the plant as a reason not to continue its contract.
“It looks like we are negotiating a divorce,” Councilmember Jeff Ritterman said. “Which is not the best analogy because you can live single but you can’t live without a wastewater system.”
Veolia will stay with Richmond until services are transferred, so the city does not go without wastewater treatment and can move services seamlessly.
A consultant group, Carollo Engineering, will look to find a viable solution — both financially and logistically — for Richmond, which may include rerouting the waste to EBMUD, decommissioning the wastewater plant, or upgrading the plant.
Though the real solution will most likely be a hybrid of one or more of the alternatives, estimates for the cost to change wastewater treatment plans range as high as $150 million, which is more than the city’s annual budget.
“This is the kind of funding that I think the federal government should help us out with,” Ritterman said.
One of the hardest things that the consultant group will deal with is the extra flow of water that the stormwater system takes in during rainy months. Ritterman suggested that having the community or large companies like Chevron collect rainwater might be a viable solution.
Veolia has encountered a few problems in Richmond over the last nine years, but the most commonly reported is odor from hydrogen sulfide emissions, particularly over the last few years.
The odor is result of a bad “digester,” or more specifically, a faulty cover on one of the two digesters. It was an issue during contract negotiations in 2002, and some Point Richmond residents have been vocal about the odor for the past few years, some citing health issues as a direct result.
“People started getting sick about a year ago,” said Maureen Decombe, a Point Richmond resident. “It seeped into our house and would smell like the dog made a mess inside. It was really bad.”
Lower levels of exposure may result in eye irritation, headache, and fatigue, Excessive hydrogen sulfide can cause death, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
When Point Richmond residents began voicing their concerns about the odors, Veolia agreed to institute air monitors at three places around the plant – on the north end, the south end and near the Washington Elementary School.
The appropriate value of hydrogen sulfide exposure set by the Center for Disease Control is 20 parts hydrogen sulfide per one million parts of air. In the last month, both the north and south monitors have peaked above 20 parts per billion (.02 ppm) multiple times, but the monitor near Washington Elementary School has not risen above 20 ppb.
The proximity of Washington Elementary School – which is about 1,000 feet from the wastewater treatment plant – is one of the most pressing concerns. Since hydrogen sulfide is heavier than air, it tends to sink closer to the ground, and close to where children are playing and breathing heavily.
“All the data I have seen this whole time, I have never seen H2S rise to the level of causing a health impact,” said James Good, the executive vice president of Veolia Water. “Having said that, different people have different sensitivities. I am not trying to minimize the discomfort the odor has caused somebody.”
In previous City Council meetings, Veolia addressed the issues of staffing the plant on the weekends and evacuation plans, in the case of a hydrogen sulfide emergency.
When Veolia took over the wastewater treatment plant, it inherited a mess of problems, including water pollution issues, air quality concerns and an old plant with massive infrastructure problems.
“Before my time, it was rogue operation, being run into the ground by city employees,” Councilmember Tom Butts said.
The company spent $5 million on renovations last year to help curb some of the odor issues.
Since Veolia took over the plant in 2002, water pollution has dropped nearly 90 percent and the facility responds to nearly all the complaints, according to a study done by Veolia.
“Our people are just as frustrated,” Good said. “It’s a very old plant and frankly before we came on board, it was a very little maintenance or capital investment done.
“We have absorbed a huge loss,” he added. “Most companies would have walked away.”
But residents still aren’t happy with the rate of upgrades.
“It really gets you down when your house smells like poop,” Docombe said. “We love it in Richmond, but now we are on the fence about leaving.”
Connect with Richmond Confidential on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.
Richmond prepares to kick out sewage plant operator
By Hannah Dreier
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 12/08/2011 04:48:50 PM PST
Updated: 12/08/2011 04:48:51 PM PST
After nearly a decade of service, and one very stinky year, Richmond is taking steps toward severing ties with its sewage treatment company, Veolia Water.
A divided City Council this week asked staffers to begin negotiating separation from the multinational corporation, and decided to pay a consultant $80,000 to look into alternatives.
For months, city leaders have been discussing moving sewage treatment in-house or running waste pipeline to the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
The council plans to take final action on the Veolia contract in February.
Veolia Vice President Jim Good said he hopes the city will continue to do business with his company.
But a majority of the council appears to have lost patience.
The council in September considered canceling Veolia's contract, but gave the company time to show it was improving and time for the air quality district to finish investigating problems at the treatment plant that vented hydrogen sulfide gas in fall 2010.
The city shut down some Veolia operations in late 2010 after a torn cover released the rotten egg-smelling gas produced in breakdown of organic material.
Residents near the Point Richmond plant reported symptoms of exposure including vomiting, headaches and breathing difficulty.
The digester has been shut down for the past year, but residents say neither the smell nor their symptoms have gone away.
In a November agreement with the Contra Costa District Attorney's Office, Veolia agreed to pay a $150,000 penalty and change the way it controls odor.
City leaders and Veolia agree that Richmond's antiquated sewage treatment system needs renovation.
"When we came on board in 2002, there had been very little maintenance on the plant for a long time," Good said. "The plant is the plant regardless of who runs it."
Good noted that water-quality violations have decreased by 97 percent since Veolia took over.
Councilmen Nat Bates, Jim Rogers and Tom Butt voted against ending the contract.
Butt said an upgrade would be the only way to eliminate odor, something that residents who don't live with the smell would not want to pay for.
Contact Hannah Dreier at 510-262-2787. Follow her at Twitter.com/hannahdreier
RETURN