[R]UTLAND — Rutland City officials had contemplated firing the plant operator who was on duty when nearly 1 million gallons of overflow sewage spilled into East and Otter creeks this summer. Instead they agreed to a 10-day unpaid suspension of the city worker and other penalties.
City officials had refused to comment on the disciplinary action taken against the employee in the Aug. 5 incident.
Records provided to VTDigger show that the worker was suspended and penalized. The name of the operator, however, was not released. City officials refused to provide the name of the worker, citing a personnel exemption.
The disciplinary action taken was included in a progress report from Rutland City Public Works Commissioner Jeffrey Wennberg dated Aug. 28 and provided to an official with the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which is investigating the spill. The state may levy a fine.
The document contains a note at the top reading, “This report contains protected, confidential personnel information.”
That report as well as other documents provided to VTDigger in the public records request only refer to the person who was disciplined by the city as “the operator on duty” when the spill took place.
“I have referred to people by their titles but caution you that the discussion regarding discipline of ‘the operator on duty’ is protected personnel information and cannot be released publicly,” Wennberg wrote in an email dated Aug. 28.
The email was sent to Shea Miller and Amy Polaczyk, both environmental analysts for the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s wastewater program. A copy was also sent to Jessica Bulova, DEC wastewater section supervisor.
The progress report Wennberg sent to the DEC wastewater program, also dated Aug. 28, stated “The Chief Operator’s investigation placed significant responsibility on the operator on duty during the morning hours of August 5.”
Wennberg, the chief operator, the operator on duty at the time of the spill and a representative of the union later met, the report stated.
“In that meeting the operator on duty repeated his recollection of the events, which varied from the system log at several key points,” according to the report. “The Commissioner notified him in writing that the investigation to date indicated that termination of employment was being considered.”
Another meeting was set for Aug. 23, the report stated, allowing more time to investigate the matter as well as permitting that operator to provide any information or evidence he would like taken into consideration before a final decision on discipline would be made.
“In the meeting of August 23rd the Commissioner explained that while the log of alarms appeared to contradict his version of events, further investigation determined that the software error prevented the low level alarms from being heard,” the report stated.
“This and other findings caused the Commissioner to conclude that while the operator on duty was responsible for the extended delay in response, the failure no longer warranted termination of employment because his recollection was not inconsistent with the corrected record. The discussion then focused on what the appropriate disciplinary measures would be.”
The next day, Aug. 24, Wennberg and the union representative “had several conversation to see if a resolution was possible” that would not lead to the filing of a grievance. On the morning of Aug. 25, the report stated, an agreement was reached.
That agreement called for:
- Suspension without pay for 10 days, the maximum suspension allowed under the union contract;
- Demotion to the position of Operator Mechanic CG3 with his compensation adjusted downward;
- Prohibition from bidding on Assistant Chief Operator vacancies for three years, and if within that that three years he commits “further failures or incidents’” resulting in disciplinary action, that bar regarding bidding on ACO vacancies becomes permanent;
- Requirement to take additional training in wastewater treatment plant operations and emergency response as directed by the chief operator.
If, after a three-year period, there are no other “failures or incidents” the record of his suspension will be removed from his personnel file, the report stated.
Wennberg said Thursday he could not speak directly to the disciplinary action taking in this case, but he did say that generally several factors are considered, including an employee’s work history.
Another consideration, he added, is reaching a fair and certain resolution, without putting the city at risk of having to engage in a long and protracted process in which outcomes may be in doubt.
Wennberg, in an interview with VTDigger in late August about the spill, described the operator on duty during the incident as “experienced.”
“He basically didn’t respond in a manner that a trained and licensed operator should have responded to the circumstances that were happening at the time,” Wennberg said. “He acknowledged the error, he apologized. … He didn’t make any excuses.”
The public works commissioner added that a “lousy” 50 cent fuse blew at the River Street pump station leading to a series of event resulting in the spill that began in the early morning hours of Aug. 5 and continued for about nine hours before it was detected and stopped.
According to Wennberg, the fuse blew around 1 a.m. and it wasn’t discovered until other employees came into work later that morning, who then quickly changed the fuse and stopped the overflow.
During the spill, Wennberg said, alarms did sound in the control room and the operator on duty did see that there was “very low flow,” but that wasn’t unusual given the early morning hour and dry weather.
It was later determined that key alarms did not sound because the settings were incorrect, according to the public works commissioner.
“Neither alarm produced an audible notice due to a software error in the control programming. This error had been in the software since it was installed,” according to the report provided to the state. “It was not discovered previously because this alarm is extremely rare as compared to the ‘wet well high level’ alarms which sound frequently during wet weather.”
Still, Wennberg said, the operator on duty should have looked at monitors for the River Street pump station, but didn’t.
“The only explanation was, ‘It didn’t occur to me,’” Wennberg said the employee reported.
VTDigger requested all communications, written or electronic, regarding the spill for a period of days after the incident from workers at the plant, Wennberg, as well as two employees from the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
Many of the documents released related to steps the city has taken to address the spill and to prevent it from happening again, including fixing the software error with the key alarms, enhancing redundancies for alarm systems and increasing training.
Wenneberg said Thursday he could never guarantee that the corrective and preventive measures the city has taken would keep future sewage spills for happening again.
“Can this particular combination of events happen again, I think the likelihood of that happening again is beyond remote,” he said.
There was no indication in the records provided to VTDigger from the state or city that the operator on duty was sleeping, or impaired, at the time of the spill.
Bulova, the DEC wastewater section supervisor, said Thursday the investigation into the spill is ongoing, declining further comment.
The state could impose a range of penalties against the city for the spill, including heavy fines.
Wennberg said he did put a photo of the blown fuse that set of the chain of events that resulted in the spill as the wallpaper for his computer at work so it’s there for him to see when he turns it on.
“It’s a little way of reminding me that upon its failure, the least consequential component in a complex system will wreak the maximum amount of damage,” he said.
