20061203 Ver 1_Public Notice Comments_20060620 (2)

June 18, 2006
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) ~ ~'
1650 Mail Service Center „~
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1650 ~ U ~~ 2 a 20Q6
Attention Ms. Cyndi Karoly ~~T~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ a~~z,rr
~awpz~~ sr~,~
Dear Ms. Karoly,
I am writing this letter to ask that DENR reject the draft EIS for the proposed Western
Wake Regional Waste Water Reclamation Facility.
I feel that the site selection was based on inaccurate data and that preferential treatment
was shown both to Progress Energy and to at least one community near Cary.
The selected site and the two alternate sites were not the sites ranked as best by the
engineers hired by the Western Wake Partners (WWP) to research the project. Out of 29
potential sites, 12 were selected and ranked. The selected site ranked fourth. Of the two
alternate sites, one ranked in the lower half of the 12 and the other site was not selected
for ranking. There is no data that has been made public that shows how these three sites
became the preferred sites.
Anyone who was monitoring the project using data provided by the WWP would have
logically concluded, until June 2005, that the selected site would be south and east of US
1 on land owned by Progress Energy. Then, in eazly June, the WWP announced the
selected site for the proposed facility. New Hill residents were completely blind-sided.
When questioned about how the data changed, the WWP cited cost considerations as the
reason for eliminating sites south and east of US 1. However, they have yet to provide
data to back up that claim, and it is cleaz that no cost-savings measures that would be
realized by siting the facility there were considered. Furthermore, cost was one of the
factors in ranking the 12 sites, so it had already been considered.
New Hill residents requested records from the WWP towns and learned that Progress
Energy (PE) has plans to develop the property that was being considered for this facility
and that representatives of the WWP had had meetings with representatives from PE to
discuss how PE would like to participate in the project. New Hill residents were certainly
not afforded that opportunity.
The records we received also showed correspondence between citizens of Green Level
and Cary Town staff and council. Cary worked with Green Level to assure protection of
their historic district and assured them that this facility would not be placed in their

community. Again, New Hill residents did not benefit from such consideration. In fact,
the selected site is directly adjacent to the New Hill historic district and lies in the center
of our community.
I join other citizens of New Hill in asking DENR to reject the draft EIS submitted by the
WWP and to insist that further study be done to analyze sites south and east of US 1.
Thank you,
~~ -~.
Ms. Thelma D. Gardner
2912 New Hill-Holleman Rd.
New Hill, N. C. 27562