Ltr to Lane and Zimmerman re Public Water for Roxboro, Mayo, Belews_20171116

F. BRYAis, BRice, JR,
CATHERM CRALLE JONES
MATmEw D. QUINN
ROBSRT R. GELBLUM, OF COUNSEL
LAW OFFICES OF
F. BRYAN BRICE, JR.
November 16, 2017
127 W. RARORTr ST., STE. 600
RALEIGH, NC 27601
TEL: [phone]
N'V,' W. A,TT YBRY A'V B R I C E, C DM
Bill Lane
General Counsel
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1601 Also sent via electronic mail to bill. laneaawcdenr.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. zimmerman(d�ncdenr.,Zov
Re: Roxboro, Belews Creek, Mayo - Permanent Water Solution
Dear Messrs. Lane and Zimmerman,
As a follow up to our November 15, 2017 letter regarding provision of public water
connection for residents living within a half mile of Duke Energy's coal basins at Asheville (see,
N. C G.S. 130A-309, 211(c]) re CAMA preference for public water connection), we write to urge
DEQ to make the same decision for residents, neighbors and property owners at the Belews
Creek, Roxboro and Mayo locations.' As you know, we represent many residents in these
locations, many of whom received "Do Not Drink" letters and all of whom have been on bottled
water for over two years. All of our clients/residents, who live within the half mile, seek
connection to a public water supply as their permanent replacement water supply from Duke.
While we renew all of the points we have previously made on behalf of the citizens who
are under CAMA's purview, and other relevant environmental laws, I trust the Department, in
making its evaluation and final determinations as to the permanent drinking water solution Duke
Energy must provide, will consider the following factors as well:
The same analysis applies to Mayo; however, Mayo is unique in that Duke Energy already owns the
majorityof land located within the mile radius of its compliance boundary. Asset out in the Dewberry water
plan analysis for Mayo, there are only 39 privately owned parcels in North Carolina and Virginia, on which are
located the 20 wells eligible for public water connection under CAMA. Because of the limited number of privately
own parcels impacted or at risk of impact, it would like be more cost effective for Duke Energy to purchase these
parcels and relocate residents.

November 16, 2017
Page 2of5
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 wells currently eligible for connection. Based on Duke's evaluation (and re-
evaluation as required by DEQ earlier this year) of public water connection options, the cost for
municipal water infrastructure at each of the plants is as follows:
Location Total Cost Homes(W.E.) Cost Per Household Source
Belews $4,800,000 39 $123,000 12.2016 Dewberry
Roxboro $5,140,000 84 $ 61,000 12.2016 Dewberry'
Mayo $1,200,000 8 $150,000 12.2016 Dewberry
The total cost of public water connection for these plants, $1.2M - $5.1 M (as shown above) is
low in comparison with the cost of providing public water connection to Plant Allen ($7.2M) and
in line with or lower than the cost at Buck Steam Station ($4.9M).4 Thus, the cost is not
"prohibitive" in comparison to the costs expended for the same permanent water supply at other
locations for neighbors across the state.
Determination of whether public water connection is "cost prohibitive" should
include updated counts of well eligible households AND multiple households connected to a
single well. Duke Energy's "household" count is not in reality a household count, but a well
count. At these plants, in many instances there are multiple homes that are connected to a single
well. Further, the Dewberry count of eligible wells has in many instances proved inaccurate. A
more appropriate determination of household cost would include the current number of all
eligible "households," and not just eligible wells. For example, at Belews Creek, we represent
26 households that would constitute new meter connections. Duke Energy, however, has
counted these households as representing only 17 eligible "wells."
Location Total Cost Households Cost Per Household Source
Belews $4,800,000 39 $123,000 12.2016 Dewberry
51 (current) DE Report to DEQ5
9 (unreported) Add'l Client Households6
Belews Households 60 $80,000
Determination of whether public water connection is "cost prohibitive" also should
include impacts on current and future property development. DEQ's determination should
not benefit residents near urban plants to the detriment of residents located near these
rural plants. As noted in previous correspondence, Duke Energy's proposed basis for
Dewberry estimated alternative public water connections for Roxboro. This figure represents the cost of a
community water well system.
3 The Dewberry report identified 22 eligible households, but only included 8 households (located NC) in its
analysis for public water connection.
4 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.
5 This count is based upon data provided by DEQ on September 5, 2017 in response to a public record
request from our office. The excel sheet title is: Attachment B Eligible Well Owner List to DEQ 8-18-17.
Additional known households (LOBB Clients) with multiple households served from one well.

November 16, 2017
Page 3 of 5
determination of what is "cost prohibitive" does not take into account current property
development opportunity and future public water line connection. We are not advocating that
Duke Energy be required to provide public water connection for future households as such is not
required by LAMA; however, the Department can and should consider the total beneficial
impact and economic impact relative to the number of properties that legally would benefit from
having a public water line available for current or future connection. At Belews and Roxboro
particularly, there are significant numbers of privately owned parcels that could legally and
easily be developed if public water connection was available. Furthermore, at Belews Creek
many of these parcels are larger than three (3) acres. Assuming that in addition to the current
connections, undeveloped private property within the 1/2 mile radius of the compliance boundary
was developed at a rate of 1 connection per three acres, the per connection "cost prohibitive"
number Duke is using drops significantly. Upon our review of GIS maps, client and neighbor
deed parcels and discussions with local water providers per Duke's submission, we estimate over
300 properties at Roxboro and over 300 at Belews are legally eligible to make such a connection
along the water line infrastructure plans Duke has submitted. For purposes of Duke's $35,000
"cost prohibitive" number, however, there only needs to be 138 hookups at Belews Creek and
147 at Roxboro.
Plant Total Cost Households Cost Per Connection Source
Belews $4,800,000 39 $123,000 12.2016 Dewberry
Compare to: 51 (current) $ 94,117 DE Report to DEQ7
60 (including) 9 (unreported)$ 80,000 Add'1 Client Households$
*Additions 78 Analysis of Stokes Co GIS9
Belews Connections 138 $353000
Roxboro $5,140,000 84 $61,000 12.2016 Dewberry
Compare to:
92 (current) $55,269 DE Report to DEQ"
*Additions (Est) 55 n/a Analysis of Person Co G1S11
Roxboro Connections 147 $35,000
Under this basic scenario, accounting for economic development and growth and the
opportunity to connect a new home, mobile home or business to a permanent municipal water
supply, these communities will be treated the same as others across the state if granted the
permanent water connection proposed by Duke. This analysis shows the cost effectiveness and
7 Attachment B Eligible Well Owner List to DEQ 8-18-17.
8 Additional known households (LOBE Clients) with multiple households served from one well.
9 Upon request, we can provide the underlying county GIS data and our analysis.
10 Attachment B Eligible Well Owner List to DEQ 8-18-17,
11 Data for Roxboro in incomplete because data was limited to parcels located within %z mile radius of
original compliance boundaries, rather than the updated boundaries currently in use for water planning purposes.
Underlying county GIS data and our analysis will be provided upon request. Also, many households in this area are
on 1 acre (not 3 acre parcels). If an estimate of 1 house per acre were used, total possible connections would be
more than 800, and cost per connection would be approximately $6,000. Above estimates are therefore very
conservative.

November 16, 2017
Page 4of5
inherent fairness in requiring Duke to provide the water connections they proposed in their
earlier Dewberry reports to DEQ.
Determination of whether public water connection is cost prohibitive should also
take into account the relative burden on each community as a result of Duke Energy's coal
ash management activities at each plant. Part of the burden on each community is represented
by the known tonnage of ash disposed of at each plant and the amount of wastewater.
Comparing the cost of a public water supply connection at each of these plants as a cost per ton
of ash stored or wastewater discharged, with the cost of public water connection at Belews,
Roxboro and Mayo, if is significantly lower than the same relative cost at Buck Steam and Plant
Allen. For example, the cost of public water connection per gallon of waste water managed at
the site is $0.11/gal at Allen compared to $0.002/gal at Mayo and $0.005/gal at Belews. The
cost of public water connection per ton of coal ash disposed of at Buck is almost $1.00/ton
compared to $0.13/ton at Roxboro and $0.18/ton at Mayo. [See table below].
Cost of Public Water Connection Per Ton of Known Ash and Gal of Wastewater by Plant12
Known
Plant
:Public
.Water.Cost :;�
Wastewater
(Gallons)
Cost Per
Gallon
Asheville
' $1,430,000
9,776,000
$0.146277
Allen
. $7125.8 000
64,000,000
$0.113406
Buck
$4,970,000:,
89,000,000
$0,055M
Roxboro
$5,1401000
122,824,0010
$0.041848
Belews
� , $4,800,D00 .
959,960,000
$0 005000 .
Mayo
%`,$1,200,000:
481,670,000
$0002491
I Public
I Water
Known Ash Cost Per
Plant
', Cost . i
(Tons) j To ;
Buck
$4,970,000
5,060,000 $0 982213 .
Asheville
$1,430,000
3,221,600.$0 443879;.
Allen
$7,2.58,000
17,447,253 ; $0 415997..
Belews
$4,800,000 .'
14,742,238 i( $0 325595
Mayo
v $1,200,0001
6,600,000 I $0181818
Roxboro
$5;140,000
38,193,810 (. $0.134577
The neighbors of the Roxboro, Belews and Mayo plants bear a greater burden of ash
management in their communities. DEQ should take into account these burdens when
determining whether connection to public water for these households should be considered cost
prohibitive or not.
DEQ has an important decision to reach regarding the direction they will give Duke at
Belews Creek, Roxboro and Mayo. In the larger context, these are more rural neighborhoods,
who have the same coal ash groundwater contamination issues that CAMA was enacted to help
address. They all want a municipal water supply which is the preferred option by statute.
Legally, when we review the land parcels within a half mile that will be able to benefit and
connect to the municipal infrastructure, and compare those areas to zoning, health department
and local regulations, and any local neighborhood covenants, in determining the number to
analyze as to whether it is cost prohibitive or not, it makes sense and is fair to use the number (or
close estimate) of connections to the infrastructure that could be made to determine the overall
12 As reported at: http://w�vw.southeasteoalash.or�,,'table-of power -plants{

November 16, 2017
Page 5 of 5
benefit to the communities and properties within a half mile. Failing to do so, as we have
outlined herein, leaves DEQ with Duke Energy's artificially high numbers. Duke will not be
paying a cent more for any extra connections, and this analysis does not ask them to - we are
only using their numbers and estimates for providing permanent water supply lines throughout
these effected communities - to accurately reflect the cost and benefit to the community within
the half mile CAMA boundary. Without such permanent water supply connections, these more
rural and working class area property values and property uses will remain depressed, as they
will only be able to use contaminated groundwater, and will not be able to use and enjoy these
permanent water supply benefits like everyone else across the state has been deemed eligible to
so enjoy.
Please help all of these good folks with a decision that will greatly benefit them now, and
into the future. Without it, there is not much future. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we
can provide any information or answer any questions.
We appreciate the difficult decisions that DEQ has been called upon to make in guiding
this process and Secretary Regan's commitment to consider and properly take care of citizens
impacted by Duke Energy's coal ash management practices. In the event that these households
are restricted to filtration systems as their only option for clean water, they will be forced to
disclose groundwater issues in any future sale of their home. They will be twice unfairly
burdened by coal ash: once by Duke Energy in having to bear the burden of ash disposal near
their homes, and the second time by the State in being denied access to public water connection
to protect their property and their communities into the future. 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,
F. Bryan Brice, Jr,