‘Ran out of patience’: Brunswick County sues contractor over delayed water treatment plant – Port City Daily

Report on the Northwest Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project Failure and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Brunswick County has initiated legal action against Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc., terminating a $122.6-million contract for the expansion of the Northwest Water Treatment Plant. The project, critical for removing PFAS contaminants and ensuring public health, has faced significant delays and allegations of poor workmanship. This failure represents a substantial setback for the county’s progress toward key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). The lawsuit seeks to hold the contractor and its sureties accountable and recover costs to complete the vital public infrastructure project.

Project Background and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Project Scope and Objectives

The Northwest Water Treatment Plant expansion is Brunswick County’s largest capital project, with two primary objectives:

1. To double the plant’s treatment capacity from 24 to 48 million gallons per day.
2. To install a low-pressure reverse osmosis system specifically designed to remove harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and 1,4-dioxane from the drinking water sourced from the Cape Fear River.

Core SDG Alignment

The project was conceived to directly address several Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The central goal is to ensure universal access to safe and affordable drinking water by implementing advanced filtration technology to eliminate chemical contaminants.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: By removing PFAS, which are linked to severe health issues, the project aims to substantially reduce illnesses and deaths from hazardous chemicals and water contamination.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: This initiative represents a significant investment in developing quality, reliable, and resilient infrastructure to support human well-being and economic development.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The project is fundamental to providing residents with access to safe and basic services, a cornerstone of creating sustainable and resilient communities.

Contractual Failures and Legal Recourse

Allegations Against Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc.

Brunswick County’s lawsuit alleges multiple breaches of contract, which have undermined the project’s contribution to the SDGs. Key allegations include:

• Failure to Meet Deadlines: The contractor failed to meet the original final completion deadline of December 10, 2023, and subsequent deadlines established under forbearance agreements.
• Poor Workmanship: The complaint cites specific instances of substandard work, including a concrete spillage in the filter underdrain system in March 2023 and a piping system collapse in August 2023 due to improper installation.

Timeline of Project Delays and County Actions

1. November 20, 2023: The county issued its first notice of default after it became clear the December 2023 deadline would be missed.
2. December 2023: A forbearance agreement was established, granting a new completion deadline of May 1, 2024.
3. July 9, 2024: After the May 2024 deadline was missed, the county issued a second notice of default.
4. July 25, 2025: The county officially terminated the contract and filed a lawsuit for breach of contract.

Legal Action and Damages Sought

The county’s lawsuit names Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc. and its sureties, Zurich American Insurance Company and Federal Insurance Company, as defendants. The county alleges the sureties failed in their obligation to ensure project completion. The county is seeking:

• Financial compensation to cover the costs of hiring a new contractor and rectifying substandard work.
• Liquidated damages of $5,500 per day, as stipulated in the contract, dating from June 30, 2023.
• Attorney fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

Broader Implications for Sustainable Development

Impact on Public Health and Access to Clean Water (SDG 3 & SDG 6)

The delay directly compromises the achievement of SDG 3 and SDG 6. Recent water tests from June 2025 show that while PFOA levels have dropped, PFOS levels (8.44 ppt) remain more than double the EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4 ppt. This ongoing exposure to contaminated water poses a direct threat to public health. The situation contrasts sharply with the neighboring Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, which has successfully used filtration technology to achieve non-detectable levels of PFAS in its water supply, demonstrating that the goal is attainable with effective project execution.

Challenges in Infrastructure Partnerships and Accountability (SDG 9, SDG 16, & SDG 17)

This case highlights the critical challenges in public-private partnerships (SDG 17) for delivering essential infrastructure. The failure of the contractor to perform has stalled progress on building resilient infrastructure (SDG 9). The county’s legal action is a necessary step toward ensuring accountability and justice through strong institutions (SDG 16). The contractor’s documented history of legal disputes on other municipal projects underscores the importance of robust vetting processes for partners in projects essential to sustainable development.

Current Status and Path Forward

Brunswick County is taking steps to mitigate the damage and complete the project to fulfill its commitments to residents and its sustainable development objectives.

• The contract with Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc. has been formally terminated.
• The county has extended its contract with engineering firm CDM Smith, Inc. to provide continued oversight during the transition.
• The county is actively seeking a new, qualified contractor to complete the plant expansion and reverse osmosis system.
• A definitive timeline for project completion is pending the selection of a new contractor.
• The county has affirmed its commitment to completing the project as designed to finally provide residents with water free from PFAS contamination.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • The core issue of the article is the contamination of drinking water with PFAS and the delayed construction of a water treatment plant designed to remove these contaminants. This directly relates to ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article discusses PFAS contamination in the context of public health risks. It mentions specific contaminant levels (PFOA and PFOS) and compares them to the EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL), which is a health-based standard. The effort to provide clean water is fundamentally about protecting residents’ health.
3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • The article centers on the Northwest Water Treatment Plant expansion, a “$122.6-million” capital infrastructure project. It details the project’s failure due to “repeated delays,” “poor workmanship,” and breach of contract, highlighting the challenges in building reliable and resilient infrastructure.
4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The provision of safe drinking water is essential for making communities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. The failure to complete the water treatment plant directly impacts the well-being and safety of the Brunswick County community.
5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • The article details the county’s use of the legal system to address the project’s failures. Brunswick County filed a lawsuit against the contractor for breach of contract and is also suing the insurance companies that guaranteed the work. This reflects an effort to build effective and accountable institutions and ensure access to justice. The lawsuit against DuPont and Chemours further underscores the use of legal channels to hold polluters accountable.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 6.1: Achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.
   • The entire article revolves around Brunswick County’s struggle to provide its residents with drinking water that is safe from PFAS contamination. The project’s goal is to install a “low-pressure reverse osmosis system for the removal of PFAS and 1,4-dioxane.”
2. Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals.
   • The article mentions a long-running lawsuit against “DuPont and its subsidiary, Chemours” for allegedly discharging “PFAS chemicals, including GenX, into the Cape Fear River for decades.” This legal action aims to hold polluters financially accountable and addresses the root cause of the water quality issue.
3. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and water pollution.
   • The effort to remove PFAS is a direct response to the health risks posed by these hazardous chemicals. The article notes that recent water tests show PFOS levels are “more than double the MCL,” the EPA’s maximum contaminant level, underscoring the ongoing health threat the project aims to eliminate.
4. Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure.
   • The article is a case study of the challenges in developing reliable infrastructure. The project, designed to “double the plant’s capacity from 24 to 48 million gallons per day,” has been plagued by missed deadlines, “poor workmanship” like a “concrete spillage” and a “piping system collapse,” and ultimately, the termination of the contractor’s contract.
5. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The county’s actions, including issuing “notice[s] of default,” terminating the contract, and filing a lawsuit, represent an attempt by a local government institution to enforce accountability. The commissioner’s frustration (“We’re the ones who look inept… They’re ghosting us.”) highlights the struggle to maintain institutional effectiveness and transparency in public projects.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for Water Quality and Safety (Targets 6.1, 6.3, 3.9)
   • PFAS Concentration Levels: The article provides specific measurements that serve as direct indicators of water safety. These include:
     • A 2020 sample with a total PFAS concentration of “189 parts-per-trillion (ppt).”
     • November 2024 levels for PFOS (“9.96 ppt”) and PFOA (“5.09 ppt”).
     • June 2025 levels for PFOS (“8.44 ppt”) and PFOA (“1.86 ppt”).
   • Compliance with Health Standards: Progress is measured against the EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) of “4 ppt.” The article notes that while PFOA has dropped below this level, PFOS remains “more than double the MCL.” The ultimate goal is achieving “non-detectable levels,” as a neighboring utility has done.
2. Indicators for Infrastructure Development (Target 9.1)
   • Project Completion Timeline: The delay is quantified by comparing the “originally slated for completion in December 2023” date with subsequent missed deadlines (“May 1, 2024”) and the current lack of a new timeline.
   • Rate of Progress: A commissioner is quoted stating the project only “progress[es] 2% every four or five months,” a clear indicator of the lack of progress.
   • Financial Penalties: The contract includes a specific penalty of “liquidated damages of $5,500 per day from June 30, 2023,” which quantifies the financial cost of the delay.
3. Indicators for Institutional Accountability (Target 16.6)
   • Legal and Contractual Actions: The number and type of formal actions taken by the county serve as indicators of its efforts to enforce accountability. These include the issuance of two “notice[s] of default,” two “forbearance agreement[s],” the official contract termination, and the filing of a lawsuit.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: portcitydaily.com