20061203 Ver 1_Public Notice Comments_20060628 (4)

Monday, June 26, 2006
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Attention: Ms Cyndi Karoly
Dear Ms Karoly:
I am writing to ask that DENR deny permitting for the proposed Western Wake Regional
Waste Water Treatment Facility. The Western Wake Partners (WWP) have submitted a draft
EIS that presents three sites, all of which lie in the New Hill community just north and west of
US 1.
The three sites were chosen despite data indicating that better sites were available for this
project on land that is nearby but is south and east of US 1. Cost issues were noted by the
WWP as the reason for failing to choose the sites that their consulting engineers designated as
more suitable. However, as cost was one of many factors considered by those engineers, it is
hard to follow this argument.
In addition, there are several factors that were not considered in making the cost comparison.
Note that no real cost analysis has been done despite cost being used as the justification for
the site selection. Cost issues were considered only after New Hill residents questioned the
site selection. Put another way, the decision was made to site the facility in New Hill (the site
was selected in 2002), and evidence was then prepared to support the decision (in July 2005).
It is difficult to understand how cost could be the reason for the site selection if cost issues
were addressed only after the site was chosen.
The WWP failed to take into account cost savings measures that would be realized by siting
the facility south and east of US 1. The most significant savings would be decreased piping
costs. For many of the sites southeast of US 1, distance to Apex and Cary would be shorter,
which would also result in fuel savings. Fewer bore/tunnel crossings of US 1 and of the
railroad would be needed if the facility were located on any of the sites southeast of US 1.
Since costs are the only justification that have been provided for the site selection, I request
that DENR require the WWP to adequately answer the many questions related to the cost
issue. Citizens have a right to have honest and complete answers to their inquiries. To date,
that has not occurred. New Hill residents have requested cost analyses that would fully
compare the selected sites with the top three sites chosen by the consultants, all of which are
located south and east of US 1. Please insist that the WWP be required to clearly and
honestly justify the site selection for this project. Thank you.
Y~Lrf~ frub4~(
i
a ulleit
~`.~ <<
New Community Association, Inc. `-`- -`'~