NC0004308_Comments_20220816

PROTECT
,}
E AIEF1N
LAKE
Protect Badin Lake, Inc. August 16, 2022
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1646
Via email to Mr. Richard Rogers, [e-mail]
Re: Permit Renewal
Application No. NC0004308
Badin Business Park
Stanly County
Dear Mr. Rogers:
The reason for this letter is to express concerns regarding the above -referenced permit renewal.
Protect Badin Lake (PBL) has been recognized as a community stakeholder for the past 2 years.
We respectfully request that our concerns be taken into strong consideration when evaluating
whether to approve the permit.
We understand several issues are being evaluated and readdressed at this point. We also
understand there will be a public comment period and hearing in the future once a draft permit is
issued by DWR. Further, PBL agrees with and has signed onto the letter submitted by Duke
Environmental Law and Policy Clinic, dated August 6, 2022, concerning ABBP's (Alcoa's
Badin Business Park) NPDES permit. Our main concerns are as follows:
• Outfall 05
As outlined in Duke's letter, ABBP has exceeded its permit limits of cyanide and fluoride
discharge into Outfall 5 numerous times, potentially contaminating Little Mountain Creek which
flows into Lake Tillery. PBL is extremely concerned about the water quality of our recreational
bodies of water including Badin Lake and Lake Tillery. The proposed diversion of Outfall 5 into
Badin Lake was the catalyst for the development of the "Protect Badin Lake" residents'
community organization in 2020. Though the current application does not divert Outfall 5 into
Badin Lake, it will continue to have an impact on Lake Tillery downstream. Lake Tillery is the
major source of drinking water for Montgomery County, where most of our members live. PBL
is opposed to the continued use of Outfall 5 out of concern that discharge from this Outfall
should not enter any body of water being used for drinking water or recreation.

We have little confidence in ABBP's motivation to protect any receiving body of water from the
effluent from Outfall 5. ABBP's comments made to DWR about the requirement for historical
data is an example of a continuing pattern of disregard for requirements needed to ensure safe
procedures. ABBP's proposal to install a hydrograph-controlled release (HCR)' further down
Little Mountain Creek at NC Hwy 740 is absurd because the US Geological Survey (USGS) has
rejected this proposal recently due to the lack of historical data. Regardless of this, ABBP
continues to push this plan.
Further, in its response to DWR, ABBP dismissed DWR's concerns about the presence of
excessive fluoride and chlorine, which exceeds permit standards at Outfall 5, by offering
unsubstantiated remarks such as blaming the "very old sewer system"2 and "[1]eaks from the
[City of Albemarle] water system may result in discharge of chlorinated water."3
We are also very disappointed that neither ABBP, nor DWR, mentioned ABBP's HCR proposal
to discharge Outfall 5 directly into Little Mountain Creek during the Stakeholder meeting held in
Salisbury on March 23, 2022. The specific purpose of the Stakeholder meeting was to talk about
the ABBP's NPDES permit renewal. We subsequently became aware that ABBP presented their
Outfall 05 HCR proposal to DWR in late February and early March, several weeks before the
Stakeholders meeting. PBL has a vested interest in building trust and transparency between the
state and ABBP. We hope the state will take this opportunity to be as environmentally
responsible as they were with the denial of the SOC.
ABBP's approach to minimizing the contamination in the effluent of Outfall 5 is misguided and
does not reflect the seriousness of its responsibility to the public. This validates PBL's position
of opposition to the continued existence of Outfall 5.
• Outfall 12, 13 and Mixing Zones
Mixing Zones are complex, engineered, well -developed mechanisms designed to introduce
effluent discharge into a larger body of water to meet water quality standards. In most cases, the
use of a mixing zone is subject to EPA approval after extensive studies to ensure that the body of
water accepting the compounds will not become impaired. In contravention of NC law,4 Outfall
12, with its current mixing zone, endangers public health and welfare by being in close proximity
to swimming, fishing and a public boat launch. PBL expressed its concern with the existence of
this mixing zone in Badin Lake at the Stakeholder's meeting. In addition, even though Outfall 13
is not a mixing zone, its discharge enters directly into the public swimming area, within feet of
1 May 27, 2022. Alcoa's response to March 9, 2022 Technical Meeting available at https://deq.nc.gov/news/key-
issues/alcoa-badin-business-park-information
2 May 27, 2022 page 1, paragraph 1 "Alcoa's response to March 9, 2022 Technical Meeting" available at
https://deq.nc. gov/news/key-issues/alcoa-badin-business-park-information
3 July 8, 2022. Item 2. "Response to request for additional information" available at
https://edocs. deq.nc. gov/W aterResources/DocView. aspx?dbid=0&id=2401744
4 15A NCAC2B.0204

children playing in the Lake. This is an inappropriate placement of another outfall. PBL requests
the removal of Outfall 12 and Outfall 13 due to the effects on human health. Alternatively, both
outfalls should have treatment methods installed to clean the ground water prior to it entering
Badin Lake.
• Soil Removal and Treatment
PBL calls for the removal of all of Alcoa's legacy contaminants in the many unlined sites around
the Badin and West Badin communities. To avoid removing all the waste, ABBP attempted to
chip away at the removal with small efforts that had little to no results. As an example of this
avoidance, in October 2021, ABBP removed less than an acre of soil to reduce the unacceptably
high levels of fluoride running into Outfall 5. This is a small fraction of the acreage that drains
into Outfall 5. In fact, almost two-thirds of the entire plant site drains into Outfall 5, according to
ABBP's provided satellite imagery.5 This small removal of dirt led to no improvement in
fluoride discharge.6
Environmental studies, completed for Alcoa in 2012,7 reveal the extent to which ABBP's
industrial waste has significantly altered the regional topographical landscape. Because the
contamination has not been removed from the unlined solid waste management units (SWMU),
there is definite leaching and runoff into surface, subsurface and ground water, even considering
the grass and tree "caps" that cover the industrial waste.
Further, ABBP only notified those in attendance at the conclusion of a Better Badin meeting of
the excavation on the eve of the removal. The State was not notified because the amount
removed did not require a permit. This lack of transparency leads to further community
frustration and lack of trust. It also is a sign that ABBP is only taking small steps to make it look
like it is making progress toward cleaning up of what has become a huge environmental mess.
• More Robust and Precise Testing of Pollutants
With an environmentally conscientious administration, abundant research about the harmful
effects of aluminum smelting byproducts, and state-of-the-art technology to identify the smallest
amounts of pollutants, it is increasingly vital that North Carolina protect its recreational bodies of
water, its drinking water, its wildlife and ultimately its citizens. We agree with Duke
Environmental Law and Policy Clinic that more regular testing and advanced analysis should be
utilized to detect the established safe state standards.
• Accountability and Significant Fines
The only way to ultimately correct the issue of pollutants entering Badin Lake and neighboring
waterways is to treat or remove the source of the contaminants. PBL recognizes that this is a
complicated and expensive solution. PBL also recognizes that although Alcoa and NC DEQ have
been aware of this issue for decades, and not nearly enough has been done to correct it, more
5 See NPDES permit application page 142.
6 See paragraph 3 "Alcoa's response to March 9, 2022 Technical Meeting"
7 DEQ website link https://deq.nc.gov/

time will be needed to develop a clean-up or treatment plan prior to the expiration of the next
NPDES Permit. ABBP has a pattern of avoidance when acting on the need for removal of
contaminants. If NC DWR's fines are not significant enough to deter ABBP's lack of action
around exceeding contaminant limits, it will continue to pollute.
Recommendations
To reiterate, PBL is urging NC DWR to deny the renewal of ABBP's Operating Permit as
submitted, and instead consider implementing the following steps:
1. Remove Outfall 5 because it has been in violation of exceedances for several years.
2. Remove Outfall 12 and 13. They are both located at inappropriate placements for a
mixing zone and contaminated discharge into Badin Lake.
3. Develop and execute a plan to remove the sources of contaminants or treat the effluent
prior to the expiration of the new NPDES Permit.
4. Test for additional contaminants and require more precise testing results, including
requiring ABBP to use certified labs that can report results at or below the existing
effluent limits.
5. In the interim hold ABBP accountable by implementing maximum fines for violations.
While Alcoa may have physically shuttered its operations in 2007, local communities and
wildlife will continue to bear the consequential harm unless the NC DEQ/DWR urgently
intervenes. Indeed, this is now the ideal time to re -address the NC DEQ's outdated practices of
tolerating the company's destructive environmental impact. ABBP should not be allowed to
transfer the pollutants it is responsible for into our state's waters.
As you are considering our requests, we will be educating the community about the current
application details in preparation for the public comment period.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Caldwell — Co -president.
Colleen McDaniel — Co -President
Protect Badin Lake
[e-mail]