N.C. keeps an eye on Rabun water plans

Rabun County's proposal to buy the sewer and water treatment facilities at the former Rabun Apparel/Fruit of the Loom (FOTL) plant raises concerns about its potential effects on the Little Tennessee River in Macon County.

The Rabun County Board of Commissioners held public information sessions Nov. 29 and Dec. 4 to discuss the county's proposed purchase of the sewer and wastewater facilities along with adjacent property at the Fruit of the Loom plant, located near the state line in Dillard.

When the plant closed in 2006, 930 people lost their jobs, including more than 300 Macon County residents. At the time it was the largest employer in Rabun County.

The plant, which is located in the Little Tennessee Watershed, had a history of environmental violations prior to shutting down, mostly for exceeding copper and BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) limits. Some are expressing worry about the permitting process for a new facility.

Rabun commissioner Pete Cleaveland, who delivered a presentation on the prospective acquisition's expected revenues and the long-term plan for the facility, told citizens at the Nov. 29 public session he felt the plant would provide a tremendous asset to Rabun County.

'The closing of the Fruit of the Loom plant was a great blow to the economy," Cleaveland said. "We have diligently tried to bring about some type of reclamation from what happened."

They project the purchase price and acquisition costs at $2.1 million. Cleaveland called the project a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."

Cleaveland said commissioners are considering the purchase because they have been offered a good price, a chance to keep the plant alive and prospective customers to provide a stream of income. "Our plan is to treat sewage and provide potable water," Cleaveland said.

The FOTL facility had a 2.4 million-gallon capacity at the wastewater treatment plant while open, but Cleaveland said that the county planned to use less than this capacity. The county intends to buy the plant for both municipal and industrial uses.

He acknowledged the non-financial considerations of the project, such as protecting the flow of water and the quality of water in the Little Tennessee.

The county would be withdrawing water from the Little Tennessee and returning treated effluent and processed water to replace what they remove.

If the county does go through with the purchase, they will have to apply for new permits with new limits on intake capacity and discharge parameters, at which time there will be a 30-day public comment period.

Cleaveland repeatedly said that the state and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (which would have to approve intake and discharge permits for the project), are both supportive of the county's endeavor in light of the FOTL job loss and had indicated this in letters and meetings.

When concerns over applying for EPD permits were brought up at the public meeting, Cleaveland said they had done everything possible with the EPD to guarantee permits. "I'd be shocked if they didn't support the permits," Cleaveland said.

In the question and answer session, Little Tennessee Watershed Association executive director Jenny Sanders asked Cleaveland about the prospect of interbasin transfers from the Little Tennessee River, which she explained could be harmful to the basin in which water is withdrawn and the basin that receives it.

"This is a concern I have not seen addressed here," Sanders said. "How are you proposing to deal with that?"

Cleaveland responded that they have no plans for interbasin transfers right now and besides the EPD would not allow it.

Sanders said to her knowledge there are currently no laws on the books that prevent them doing interbasin transfers if they decide to, although Cleaveland said he believed there were regulations.

She also inquired if the EPD is convinced that the county needs the amount of capacity for water that the treatment plant would bring, in light of its other facilities, which already produce a capacity of 3.5 mg/d (million gallons a day). Of that amount, the county only uses .75 mg/d. Cleaveland replied that this was correct.

"We're not going to do anything the EPD won't allow us to do," Cleveland said.

Sanders then asked Cleaveland if the county acquires the EPD permits, giving them an excess of nearly 5 mg/d of water, whether they would consider making that excess available to customers outside the county.

Cleaveland responded that he would not be opposed to making the county's resources available to customers outside of Rabun County.

Sanders also referenced the 2007 and 2002 North Carolina Division of Water Quality Basinwide Water Quality plans, which mention the FOTL plant by name in its recommendations.

It reads: "DWQ will continue conversations with Georgia EPD to find opportunities to improve NPDES discharger performance. Protective measures should be written into the NPDES permit for any new operation at the old Rabun Mills Plant. These measures should be prepared and made available to potential new owners before assuming operation of the plant."

In the 2002 NC DWQ Basinwide Water Quality Plan, under the heading "current status" for the Little Tennessee, it says: "Data indicated possible toxicity problems and low dissolved oxygen conditions, but not severe organic loading. DWQ suspects that the source of these problems is the Fruit of the Loom facility just over the state line in Georgia."

The LTWA is requesting documents of the correspondence between Rabun County and the EPD to understand what might have been promised to Rabun County.

Mike Cummings, who came to represent a group of Rabun County taxpayers, asked commissioners about the risks of getting in trouble with the EPD and violating the Federal Clean Water Act.

Legal representation for the project, Todd Silliman of McKenna, Long & Aldridge, (the lawyer representing Atlanta in the suit against the Army Corps of Engineers in the Lake Lanier water wars saga with Florida and Alabama), said the goal is compliance, and the intent is to ensure the plant is designed properly to handle the load.

Cummings asked about the impact on the Little Tennessee River and commented that people in North Carolina are keeping an eye on this potential transaction.

He inquired if the FOTL plant had any history of violations when it was still in operation.

Silliman said that to his knowledge, the plant was out of compliance twice.

Sanders then corrected Silliman, citing documents she had brought with her indicating the plant was out of compliance in five of the last 12 quarters they were in operation, primarily in violation of copper and BOD limits their permit allowed.

One Town of Dillard representative said he still also had concerns about the proposal.

Paul Dillard of the Dillard city council said the commissioners had met with the council and asked for their approval and endorsement of the project.

Dillard commented that the Town of Dillard has a wastewater treatment plant only a quarter mile away from the FOTL plant.

Although he said he supported issues like this when it comes to water and sees the value in such an endeavor, Dillard said he felt they would be competing for the same revenues.

Dillard explained that the town had just modified its treatment plant to increase capacity to 200,000 gallons per day, and with a look towards the future worked to get approved for a capacity of up to a million gallons a day.

"I don't think it makes sense to compete against each other," Dillard said.

Dillard said the town is willing to partner with the county, but qualified: "Let's not make our decisions hastily. Let's do this with due process."

Cummings said it sounded to him like three or four of the commissioners had already made up their minds on the proposal, despite some uncertainties surrounding the purchase, most notably the amount of jobs it would potentially create.

Cleveland said that some of the commissioners are convinced it is the right thing to do, but that no one had made up their minds yet.

Commission chairman Virgil Kilby did say at the Nov. 29 meeting he had not made up his mind on how he would vote for the proposal. Kilby wanted to see more numbers on how it would affect the taxpayers.

Cleveland urged citizens to consider the potential positive impact on the county.

"We've been involved in this for a year," Cleveland said. "We've done a lot of analysis. "We think it's certainly worth pursuing."