Cathy Corker, a former state park ranger and Lake Anna resident in Spotsylvania County, knows the impact that thousands of people can have on a body of water — that’s why she attended a public hearing to voice her concerns with a permit from Amazon Web Services (AWS) that would authorize releasing treated water from a data center into Lake Anna.

The public hearing at Louisa County Middle School on June 9 concerned a draft permit from AWS seeking permission from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to release 280,000 gallons of treated non-contact cooling water per day into Sedges Creek at Lake Anna. The water would be used to cool IT equipment inside the Lake Anna Technology Campus, one of the two AWS data centers currently under construction in Louisa County. The creek is a stream that runs through the Lake Anna Technology Campus and empties into Dominion’s Waste Heat Treatment Facility near the Aspen Hill subdivision.

As part of the regulatory process, AWS is applying for a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (VPDES) from DEQ. During a public comment period in March, Lauren Voluck, an environmental program manager with AWS, addressed some concerns of attendees.

She relayed that while data centers generate heat that needs to be removed to ensure equipment can run safely, the data centers are designed for “maximum efficiency and sustainability.” This includes a plan to use outside air cooling 96% of the year where water use is not required. During the hottest hours of the year, Voluck stated the plan is to use evaporative cooling where a large fan draws warm air through pads made of absorbent material; when the hot air interacts with the water, heat causes the water to evaporate. That cool air is then blown into server rooms to prevent IT equipment from overheating.

Additionally, Voluck stated that water left over from the evaporative cooling process collects and is recycled multiple times before being treated to meet all state and federal water quality regulations before it is discharged.

At the June meeting, Melanie Davenport, the Chief Strategy Officer with the DEQ Central Office, stated that requirements in the permit are established to protect water quality and maintain beneficial uses of the receiving water.

She outlined that the purpose of the night’s hearing was to provide an opportunity for individuals who previously provided comments on the draft permit to respond to DEQ’s public comment summary and response; she stated that no new information would be accepted at this time. Four people spoke during the public comment period.

Cuckoo resident Nicki Atwood shared information found on the front page of lakeannatechcampus.info, that the typical daily discharge is less than 0.0001% compared to Lake Anna’s volume. Atwood said that whenever concern is expressed about the discharge volume, the response is that the data center is planning on discharging much less.

In DEQ’s response to comment regarding discharge into Lake Anna, they responded that in relying on 30 years of weather data for the area, a conservative estimate for the number of hours the noncontact cooling system may need to run is 350 hours, or approximately 4 percent of the year. The facility anticipates a maximum daily discharge of 140,000 gallons during any typical year. Assuming 350 hours of water cooling per year and a discharge flow rate of 4,000 gallons per hour, an estimated 28 million gallons of treated noncontact cooling water would be discharged over 20 years.

“I accept that,” Atwood said. “But the permit doesn’t limit them to that estimate. The permit authorizes the capacity and the comprehensive testing that will tell us what’s in the discharge… that doesn’t happen until six to 12 months after the discharge. There needs to be some limit in place.”

Atwood also touched on the potential chemicals in the data center’s discharge water.

In their response to comments, DEQ stated that the following chemicals will be utilized as part of the facility’s treatment process: “25% sodium hydroxide, 93% sulfuric acid, 40% sodium bisulfite, polyaluminum chloride, polymer, sulfide‐functional polymer, and 32% calcium chloride. These chemicals are removed during the treatment process; however, Total Residual Chlorine (TRC), chlorides and pH are monitored to ensure they have been removed and that the treatment process is operating properly.”

After the four speakers, Davenport began concluding the meeting, with many in the audience expressing frustration that they were not allowed to speak.

“We care about the environment, we care about that body of water, and we also expect, as a state agency, that you would care. I am very upset that this has occurred in this manner, and this is of importance to our area whether you live here or not… this is going to affect us for our lives and our kids’ lives,” Corker said. “It’s done incorrectly and it should be that everyone has an opportunity to help and make this a better situation. This is not right.”

Davenport responded that DEQ is bound by what state law and regulations say.

“This process is absolutely crystal clear and it’s spelled out — it’s what the Virginia General Assembly said, ‘this is how you do your process,’” Davenport said. “This requirement that you have to have participated in the public comment period to enter more comments tonight is in state law. I did not write the law. I am implementing the law.”

In a follow-up interview with 12 on Your Side and The Central Virginian, Corker assumed that the meeting would be packed due to concern about the draft permit, but noted that it was difficult for the public to follow the advertisements for the meeting.

“This is where we live. This is where we grew up. This is where our families grew up. We expect it to be around for eons,” Corker said. “If we don’t take care of it and we allow people to come in and destroy it —- and we know that they are destroying our environment and our waterways…it’s disturbing. I think it’s wrong for them to make decisions without allowing all of our residents an opportunity [to speak].”

Corker’s main concern was the unknowns of the discharge and how it will impact Lake Anna.

“I used to work as a state park ranger — 3,000 people at that park affected that water,” Corker said. “It’s important that we go to the lengths that’s required for us to do our due diligence to take care of all of our bodies of water.”

To see the entire DEQ response to comments, they can be found on page 114 of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors (BoS) June 1 agenda packet.