Officials' emails, texts contradict report
Inconsistencies call into question when city notified VDH
The Richmond Water Treatment Plant, shown from the air, lost power last month after a winter storm dropped 3 inches of snow on the city.
RICHMOND WATER CRISIS| THE FALLOUT
Texts and emails exchanged between senior officials with the Virginia Department of Health during the water crisis contradict the timeline laid out in a city-commissioned report detailing how city officials responded to the catastrophic failure of Richmond's water treatment plant.
The messages show officials in VDH's Office of Drinking Water were not aware of the severity of the situation until around 3 p.m. on Jan. 6, despite the city's claim that a VDH representative was on site at the plant by 12:30 p.m. that day.
The city's and the VDH's investigations into the water crisis are ongoing, although both have released preliminary findings. Under state code, the ODW has regulatory authority over Virginia waterworks.
'Has anyone reached out to them yet?'
The city's report, produced by the engineering firm HNTB at the request of Mayor Danny Avula and City Council, indicates that a "representative from VDH arrive(d)" at the plant at 12:30 p.m. on Jan. 6, roughly 7 hours after a power outage took the facility offline.
But internal communications show VDH officials still did not understand the extent of the crisis by around 3 p.m.
The messages were obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch through a Freedom of Information Act request. Hundreds of the responsive documents were partially or fully redacted under the working papers exemption to Virginia's FOIA.
In an email sent to his colleagues at 2:36 p.m. on Jan. 6, Bailey Davis, ODW's chief of field operations, wrote that he'd heard from "a friend from another department" that there might be "issues … in water production/distribution" at the Richmond plant.
"Has anyone reached out to them yet?" Davis asked.
James Reynolds, the director of Richmond's ODW field office, replied: "We had this morning with no indication of issues."
"Will check again," Reynolds wrote to Bailey in an email timestamped 2:41 p.m. Jan. 6.
Fourteen minutes later, Reynolds sent a follow-up email in which he reported "flooding at the plant due to a power outage," and said he was "assessing the situation right now." That's the first direct reference to the outage in the communications exchanged between senior VDH officials that day.
In an email sent to VDH staff at 5:14 p.m., ODW Director Dwayne Roadcap said that Reynolds was working to "see whether his team (could) visit the water plant for an inspection this evening." It is not clear whether Reynolds was the first VDH representative to arrive at the plant.
The cause of the more than two-hour discrepancy between the city's and the state's timelines is not clear.
Roadcap declined to disclose specific details regarding the VDH's response, citing the department's active probe into the events. He referred The Times-Dispatch to the VDH's Jan. 23 notice of alleged violation, which notes that department staff were not aware of the crisis until between 2:30 and 3 p.m. on Jan. 6.
Julian Walker, a spokesperson for Avula said that the VDH had been "given an opportunity to review the (HNTB) report" before it was published. Walker did not directly reiterate the city's claim that a VDH representative was on site by 12:30 p.m.
VDH officials concerned by 'shifting timeline'
The text and email exchanges also show VDH officials were frustrated about the shifting timeline for water service restoration and worried that city officials were using the state agency as an "emergency plan."
In a Jan. 7 email debating the merits of telling residents they could begin using water sparingly — flushing toilets, taking short showers but otherwise conserving to allow the Byrd Park reservoir to fill — Roadcap pointed out that "as soon as that messaging goes out, everyone starts filling bathtubs." The collective rush to stockpile exacerbates the shortage, Roadcap said, and "you end up getting the exact opposite result of what was requested."
"Yeah, good point," Bailey replied. "(I'm) just concerned about the shifting restoration timeline and potential for a more extended outage."
Bailey was likely referencing the fact that city officials on multiple occasions pushed back the projected return of water pressure. Avula had initially said service would be fully restored on the afternoon of Jan. 7 and would likely be drinkable by Jan. 8.
But in an email sent by a staffer in the state's Department of Environmental Quality and leaked to The Times-Dispatch, the DEQ staffer cast doubt on that claim, and speculated that running water would not return until late on Jan. 9. That meant it would not be potable until Jan. 11.
"DEQ staff called me last night to explain the RTD article," Roadcap wrote in a text to VDH colleagues.
"Well, it's public info anyway, although that messaging didn't help," Bailey wrote back.
In another text exchange, VDH officials expressed misgivings about whether they should even be directly involved in the recovery operations.
"My concern is they are using us as an insurance policy against any future problems," wrote Jess Coughlin, VDH's emergency services coordinator.
Roadcap agreed. "We should not be included as a regular piece of their emergency plans … on-site," he said.
One test was positive for coliform, email shows
Hours before officials lifted the boil advisories in Richmond and the surrounding localities, Bailey sent an email to senior VDH officials clarifying a miscommunication in the water testing process.
To clear a boil advisory, officials are required under state law to collect two samples that test negative for bacterial contamination, with a 16-hour gap between sample collection.
"We have been reporting that all Richmond samples have been absent for total coliform, but that is inaccurate," Bailey wrote in a Jan. 11 email sent at 8:26 a.m. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, positive tests for coliform can "indicate the presence of other disease-causing bacteria, such as those that cause typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis A, and cholera."
Richmond had "one total coliform positive" during the testing process, Bailey wrote, but officials "collected a repeat at the same time which was negative," allowing them to ultimately lift the boil advisory.
"I think the more accurate messaging is that all sample sites have tested absent for total coliform," Bailey advised.
In an email thanking VDH staff for their work during the crisis, Grant Kronenberg, director of compliance and enforcement, suggested that, while Richmond officials may have complied with existing state regulations governing incident reporting, there is a clear need to tighten those regulations.
"There is a current regulatory requirement to notify VDH within 24 hours … (of) 'any situation that occurs with the waterworks that presents an imminent and substantial threat to public health,'" Kronenberg wrote.
"In some situations, 24 hours may be too much," he added.
That requirement could soon change. The General Assembly on Friday unanimously passed a bill, brought by Del. Destiny LeVere Bolling, D-Henrico, that shrank the reporting deadline to six hours.
It will now go to Gov. Glenn Youngkin's desk to be either signed or vetoed.
"We could still consider whether we still want to pursue regulatory amendments that go beyond whatever the bill's final language is," Kronenberg wrote in the Jan. 11 email.
Samuel B. Parker(804) 649-6462 sparker@timesdispatch.com
