Yadkin Hydroelectric Project

The Dubious Environmental History of Alcoa

by Patty

While the N.C. Division of Water Quality reviews Alcoa’s second application for the latter’s 401 water quality certificate needed to oversee the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project – a situation that resulted from new information on contamination at the Project submitted during a recent public comment period – it should be noted that this is not the first instance of allegations about environmental problems caused by Alcoa’s operations. Far from it, in fact.

The multinational firm has a history in many countries of not being a responsible corporate citizen. Since 1987 in the United States alone, nearly 50 Alcoa facilities have been cited for pollution violations by state and federal regulators. And that’s just counting what has happened in the last two decades alone.

Consider these notable cases:

• In 2002, Alcoa paid $550,000 to settle a federal lawsuit alleging its aerospace products plant in Lafayette, Ind. violated water pollution limits. Under the agreement, Alcoa admitted no wrongdoing and avoided a trial over the 1999 complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency.

• The Justice Department joined the EPA in 2000 in filing claims against Alcoa that contamination from its plants on the Mississippi River killed many fish and invertebrates as well as violated the 1971 Clean Air Act from 1994-1999. In an agreement, Alcoa consented to pay about $8.8 million to clean the Mississippi River Basin, reduce hazardous waste generation, install a new $5 million wastewater treatment system and research new air pollution reduction technology.

• Since 1989, the EPA has ordered Alcoa to clean up pollution it produced in the Grasse River, a tributary of the St. Lawrence River by the New York-Canadian border. In 1991, Alcoa paid $7.5 million in criminal fines and civil penalties as part of this effort, but much remains to be done to rehabilitate the site.

• An Alcoa smelter in Portland, Western Victoria, Australia, received a license to expand operations in 2007 despite the fact that it had emitted twice the amount of two hazardous gases than was authorized under its permit. For that, Australia’s Environment Protection Authority did not penalize Alcoa but rather amended its license to allow the smelter to emit more of the chemicals, saying it was not affecting the environment. Also, officials with Alcoa’s Australian operations have not denied reports that Alcoa has sought protection from the Australian government from any future carbon charging regime, which would put a considerable price on the amount of greenhouse gases it emits.

These instances just scratch the surface of Alcoa’s environmental record. Still, they indicate a disturbing pattern that raises serious questions about its commitment to the ecology of the communities in which the company operates.

For anyone who has read the report submitted during the public comment period by Dr. John H. Rodgers, Jr., an esteemed water quality expert from Clemson University, which concluded there are several environmental hazards facing the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project due directly to Alcoa’s dam operations there, this is just the latest example of Alcoa putting profits ahead of public health and safety. It should not be this way for the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on the Yadkin River as their source of drinking water, recreation and other uses.

The DWQ must hold Alcoa accountable if it confirms contamination in the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project occurs from Alcoa’s operations. And as Alcoa continues efforts to receive a new 50-year license for the Project from the federal government, its failure to prevent these incidences not only there but worldwide should be examined thoroughly as to whether it really is the best entity to ensure a secure and prosperous water resource for North Carolinians in the future.

Permalink |  Save on del.ico.us

Commenting is closed for this article.