Questions arise over wastewater plan
Spokesman Review
Thomas Clouse
December 6, 2008
New questions are emerging over Spokane County’s desire to buy a $142 million wastewater treatment plant that would remove less pollution but cost about the same to operate as another proposed facility rejected by a selection committee.
County officials defend the move, saying the bid submitted by CH2M Hill Constructors Inc. to build and operate the plant remains the best choice even though a competitor, Veolia Water North America, proposed a facility that would leave about 50 percent less phosphorus in treated water and, some argue, cost slightly less in the long run.
Although there’s disagreement over whose long-term costs would be less, no one disputes that the Veolia proposal would remove more phosphorus, which is one of the key pollutants that government agencies are under increasing regulatory pressure to keep out of the Spokane River. But while the percentage difference may sound impressive, the actual reduction in terms of parts per liter is too minimal to matter, said Dave Moss, the county’s water reclamation manager.
Besides, the phosphorus level of treated water was just one of thousands of issues the selection committee considered when evaluating each company’s bid, Moss said.
“It’s not that it’s not important to get down to low phosphorous levels. It’s a huge driver of the project,” Moss said. “One offered to get a bit lower. But CH2M Hill intimated that they could get lower if they needed to..”
Moss pointed out that Veolia’s proposal included a $30 million higher bill to build the facility than CH2M Hill.
But Veolia project manager Sean Haghighi said his company’s proposal beat CH2M Hill’s yearly operating costs by more than $1 million. “They have their own formula. But based on our analysis, it’s a flip of a coin. We thought it was the same price … over 20 years,” Haghighi said.
The new round of questions, raised by environmentalists and others, follow earlier concerns voiced during a public hearing over why the county is pushing ahead with construction of a multimillion-dollar facility when state and federal regulators have yet to determine precisely how much pollution will need to be removed from treated water.
The proposed plant would be built on 20 acres on the old stockyards at Freya Street and Boone Avenue. County officials say the plant is necessary because the county will exhaust its allotted capacity at Spokane’s existing wastewater treatment plant in about four years.
The overall science behind the project can be complex.
Moss, for example, said environmental regulators may require phosphorus levels in treated water to be reduced to 10 micro-grams per liter before allowing it to be discharged into the Spokane River. If that happens, neither of the proposals submitted would be sufficient without changes.
Veolia guaranteed to remove all but 25 micrograms per liter of phosphorus compared with CH2M Hill’s guarantee of 50 micrograms per liter. Haghighi argued that even-lower phosphorus limits would make a stronger argument for his company’s proposal.
“All along we tried to say, that with the lower phosphorus guarantee, we should be given some credit. But we were told that they did not consider it and the environmental impact was not significant,” he said. “They probably have a higher level of comfort with (CH2M Hill), I guess.”
County Utilities Director Bruce Rawls, who worked 17 years for CH2M Hill before coming to the county 14 years ago, said in a November interview that the proposals differed in price by only 1 percent over the 20-year contract, which includes the cost of designing, building and operating the facility by the private, for-profit companies.
“You select the most advantageous proposal. It might be that the better proposal is most expensive,” Rawls said. “The one we picked is actually a little less expensive.”
Aside from the arguments regarding price and phosphorus levels, Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke said he was told by some experts that Veolia’s design, which incorporated a series of seven barriers, was too complex and relies on a largely untested technology.
“The impression that I’ve been under is that Veolia proposed technology that has less documentation about hitting that level,” said Mielke, who worked as a lobbyist for a subsidiary of Veolia before he was elected to the county commission.
The plant as proposed would cost about $142 million to build. However, the county expects to spend another $30 million on pipes and other infrastructure. And, the plant would cost about $6.8 million to operate each year.
The impact on ratepayers is expected to be significant. No current estimates have been made, but last year – when the estimated cost of the project was about $65 million less – officials warned that ratepayers would be spending, on average, $40 per month more.
If the county doesn’t get a discharge permit for the river, county leaders are exploring a $40 million proposal to pipe treated wastewater to Saltese Flats. The idea would be to convert farmland into reclaimed wetlands to naturally filter the water while providing more recharge to the Spokane River during summer months when it runs very low.
But that $40 million price does not include land acquisition or site preparation, Mielke said. And if regulators don’t sign off on the Saltese Flats plan, the county may be forced to go to a third option, which is reverse osmosis. Under that scenario, the county would have to pay for technology that would essentially convert the wastewater into potable water that could then be injected directly back into the aquifer, Mielke said.
Separate from the debate of the cost of technology, the Sierra Club sent a letter to the county complaining that officials did not do a comprehensive cost study to show why it would be cheaper to allow a private company to operate the utility than county employees.
Mielke said he doesn’t know whether a cost study was done.
“That’s the sales pitch they give you is we can bring more highly trained people with more experience to your community at a much lesser cost,” he said.
But Rachael Paschal Osborn, who wrote the Sierra Club letter, argued that the county’s actions are financially irresponsible to the ratepayers, who mostly live in Spokane Valley.
“Private corporations are not public servants,” Osborn wrote. “Their allegiance is to their shareholders, not the public, and their primary motive, some would say duty, is profit. Clearly, no private corporation would enter into this contract without a guaranteed profit.”
Mielke said he’s willing to put his political future on the line for this decision to forge ahead with CH2M Hill.
“I think some of the best national experts have been involved in this dialogue in selecting this technology,” he said. “I think this community needs to move forward with advanced technology.”