Yadkin Hydroelectric Project

Charlotte Observer Piece Confirms Public Impact on Alcoa’s Withdrawn Application for Water Quality Certificate

by Patty

If you wrote to the N.C. Division of Water Quality during the recent two-week public comment period opposing Alcoa’s application for a 401 water quality certificate, congratulations! Bruce Henderson of The Charlotte Observer confirmed our impact in his Are dams damaging Yadkin? article May 10, and we can confidently say that your comments made the difference in Alcoa dropping its original application and reapplying for a new one that same day.

Henderson noted that the DWQ urged Alcoa, or officially Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI), to withdraw its application after receiving news of contamination in Badin Lake, one of four lakes that make up the system of hydroelectric stations, dams and reservoirs along a 38-mile stretch of the Yadkin River in central North Carolina known as the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. He added that Robin Smith, assistant secretary of the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which oversees the DWQ, said testing for Stanly County showed more contamination than the state had found a decade earlier.

The Charlotte Observer report contrasted sharply with Alcoa’s spin in its press release on the day it dropped its first application. The release included a quote from Gene Ellis, APGI licensing and property manager, that “We decided that withdrawing our application and reapplying was the right thing to do. The additional time will ensure that all factors have been appropriately considered before a new water quality certificate is issued.”

This is the same Gene Ellis who said at the start of the two-week public comment period for the certificate on April 17 that “We fully anticipate the state will promptly reissue the water quality certificate once this additional public comment period has passed.” He was wrong about that timeline, and Alcoa itself underestimated the impact of the public comment, although it claimed its release that the May 9 deadline for the DWQ to make its final decision “provided little time for state officials to adequately address the public comments it received this month, prompting the request for APGI to withdraw and resubmit its application.”

Henderson came closer to the truth of the situation in his article. When he asked Ellis if the state appeared ready to deny the water permit, Ellis said, “the conversation was more along the line of, ‘We want to be sure of what we’re doing.’” Regardless of whether the “we” Ellis mentioned was the state or Alcoa, information received during the public comment period had to have raised doubts about Alcoa’s environmental commitment to the Yadkin Hydro Project during the previous decades Alcoa has operated in the area. That is a tribute to those of you who submitted your letter and statements, and it shows your decisive impact in this process.

In the company’s press release, Ellis said that “We expect the state to conduct a timely review of our new application and issue a new water quality certificate within the next several months. We do not believe the additional public comments provided to the State include any new, relevant information regarding the discharges from the Yadkin Project.”

Could Ellis be wrong about that guess, just as he was about the original application? It remains to be seen, although it does seem odd that if Alcoa thinks that there is no “new, relevant information” from the public comment period, it would then choose to withdraw its application in favor of a new one.

What is certain is that for now, we the opponents of the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project under Alcoa’s proposal, have made our case with a state governing body and we are ready to provide more information as needed in the future.

As always, we will keep you up to date on the latest developments regarding the new application with the DWQ as they occur.

Permalink |  Save on del.ico.us

Commenting is closed for this article.