Ltr to DEQ re Arden Per Household Cost_20171115

LAW OFFICES OF
F. BRYAN BRICE, JR.
F. BRYAN BRICE, JR.
CATHERINE CRALLE JONES
MATTHEw D. QUINN
ROBERT R. GELBLUM, OF COUNSEL
November 14, 2017
Bill Lane
General Counsel
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
127 W. HARGETT ST., STE. 600
RALEIGH, NC 27601
TEL:[phone]
W W W.ATTYBRYANBRICE.COM
Raleigh NC 27699-1601 Also sent via electronic mail to bill. lanegncdenr.,gov
Jay Zimmerman
Director, Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 Also sent via electronic mail to lay.zimmermankncdenr.gov
Re: Arden Permanent Water Solution Across the French Broad River
Dear Messrs. Lane and Zimmerman,
I am writing to follow up on prior conversations and information provided regarding
clean water for all residents near the Duke Coal Ash ponds in Asheville.
It is clear that under CAMA, "preference shall be given to permanent replacement water
supplies by connection to public water supplies." N.C.G.S. §130A-309.211(cl). The only
exceptions are: 1) if "a household elects to receive a filtration system"; or 2) if "the Department
determines that connection to a public water supply would be cost -prohibitive," the Department
may authorize provision of a filtration system. Id. Since there is no definition under the statute
as to what is "cost prohibitive," it is the Department's responsibility, not Duke Energy's, to
determine what may be considered cost prohibitive.
In its water plans submitted to DEQ, Duke Energy proposed a threshold of $35,000 per
household, based upon a calculation of total cost divided by the total number of well eligible
households to be served. DEQ acknowledged that while Duke Energy's proposed threshold was
acceptable for planning purposes, DEQ noted that "based upon site -specific factors and
conditions, any determination as to whether connection to a public water supply for a
particular household would be cost -prohibitive is subject to change." (Zimmerman Letter to
Duke Energy, January 13, 2017). Duke Energy's recommended finding that public water
connection at Asheville, Belews and Roxboro is "cost prohibitive" is in error, does not take into
consideration site specific factors and should be changed for Asheville' because the calculation:
1) should include costs for all impacted neighbors not just some; 2) should consider relative
' This letter addresses issues specific to Asheville. By separate correspondence, site specific considerations at the
other plants will be addresses.

November 15, 2017
Page 2 of 3
cost/investment by plant; 3) should not benefit neighbors of urban plants over the interest of
neighbors who live in less densely populated areas; and 4) should provide the same overall
economic and development opportunities and property value benefits as that of the other plants
that are receiving a connection to public water supplies.
Determination of whether connection is "cost prohibitive" should include total costs
to hook up all landowners impacted by Duke Energy's ash ponds at its Asheville plant, and
not divide costs and residents depending upon their location relative to the French Broad. Costs
of public water connection for households East and West of the French Broad as reported by
Duke are set out below. Based upon the total cost to connect all current households, the cost of
connection is less than $30,000 per household, including cost to connect residents on the west
side of the French Broad.
Location
Total Cost
Households
Cost Per Household Source
East of FB
$ 390,000
40
$ 9,750 12.2016 Dewberry
West of FB
$1,040,000
8
$130,000 Resident Mtn
Asheville
$1,430,000
48
$ 29,792
Accordingly, if all costs for public water connection were considered on a plant basis and not a
neighborhood basis, then even by Duke Energy's own calculations, the per household cost would
be less than its arbitrarily set threshold number of $35,000 per connection. These are all
properties that are within the half mile of the compliance boundary of the ponds.
Determination of whether connection is "cost prohibitive" should include relative
cost to Duke by plant to provide public water connection to residents regardless of the
number of residents currently for connection. The cost of connecting all currently impacted
household at Asheville is low compared to the cost of public water connection for all impacted
households at other Duke plants. The total cost of $1.4M (as shown above) is low compared to
the cost of providing public water connection to Plant Allen ($7.2M) or at the Buck Steam
Station ($4.9M).3
Determination of whether public water connection is "cost prohibitive" should also
include consideration of cost based upon impact to future property development. Duke
Energy's proposed basis for determination of what is "cost prohibitive" does not take into
account property development and future public water line connection. We are not suggesting
that Duke Energy is required to provide public water connection for future households, but the
Department should consider the number of properties that would benefit from having a public
water line available for such future connection. For example, in calculating costs for public
water connection for Arden residents, Duke Energy is dividing the cost by only eight (8)
households, which include several homes who received Do Not Drink advisories from the State.
However, if a public waterline were run down Glenbridge and then up Sumner Drive (which the
local municipality has approved), then at least 22 tax parcels would have access for public water
2 Duke Energy has not provided any written documentation or data to residents west of the French Broad (or
DEQ) regarding public connection costs. Numbers provided here were shared with residents during a meeting with
representatives from Duke Energy on November 1, 2017. Based on estimate prepared by residents in conjunction
with City of Asheville water department staff and other, these costs may be significantly inflated.
3 Unless otherwise indicated, all cost estimates come from Duke Energy's proposed water plans, prepared by
Dewberry and submitted to DEQ in December of 2016.

November 15, 2017
Page 3 of 3
hook-up. Many of these parcels are larger than three (3) acres. Local zoning and health
department rules, and deed covenants in the area allow the lots to be legally subdivided for a
minimum of 59 water connections along that water line infrastructure. If those additional legal
water connections (which Duke is NOT responsible for paying, but has committed to the cost of
primary infrastructure) are considered in the calculations, the per household cost drops even
further.
Location
Total Cost
Households
Cost Per Household
Source
East of FB
$ 390,000
40
$ 9,750
12.2016 Dewberry
West of FB
$1,040,000
8
$130,000
Resident Mtg w DE
*Additions
51
no add'1 cost
plat ma]parcels/acreages
West of FB
$1,040,000
59
$ 17,627
Asheville
$1,430,000
99
$ 14,444 Duke total
cost #s, divided by total HHs
A corollary principle is that Duke Energy's calculation of what is "cost prohibitive"
based on a per capita calculation of currently well eligible households, benefits the neighbors of
urban plants (where land development is more dense) to the detriment of its neighbors near more
rural plants, where property remains largely undeveloped, and/or less densely developed. We
can provide the plat map and other maps that show the water line infrastructure location down
Glenbridge Road and then up to the end of Sumner Dr., all of the properties that legally are
allowed a connection to that infrastructure, and that the costs just for the Arden community West
of the river, when viewing the whole land and economic picture, is well below $35,000 per
connection. This is the fair and proper way to appraise the cost effectiveness, or cost
`prohibitiveness," of what is being proposed as the municipal water option.
We appreciate the decisions that DEQ has been called upon in guiding this process. We
urge you to consider this information in light of Secretary Regan's statements prior to his
confirmation, to "be thorough and deliberate, but I also want to move forward as quickly as
possible and make sure that DEQ is making the best decisions for those most impacted, the
citizens. We want to ensure that these situations never happen again and that those citizens who
were impacted are rightfully and properly taken care of, and make sure that we don't
underestimate the impact of what those individuals have gone through, from both environmental
and economic standpoints."5 Unless a public water connection is provided, these citizens will
have to disclose water contamination issues in connection with any residential sale of their
property. The only way to properly take care of these residents is to provide public water.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
1�r_ , -
F. Bryan Brice, Jr.
4 Duke Energy cost projections provided here were shared verbally with residents during a meeting with
representatives from Duke Energy on November 1, 2017.
5 http://www.ncpolicvwatch.com/2017/04/06/dcg-secretary-regan-sails-senate-confirmation-hearing/