02-06 North American Emerald Mine File Pt. 17

T$CCEiVlCD
STA OF HQR,�'tA$� INgL11VA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.
Petitioner
vs.
FILED
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Dee 20 12 04 PM 2005
N. C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Respondent
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04 EHR 2162
NOTICE OF CLOSURE
Petitioner has fried Voluntary Dismissal in the above -captioned matter. Therefore, no
this contested case is CLOSED.
further proceedings are needed or required to resolve the contested case captioned above, and
This the 20th day of December, 2005.
J L. Co er, II
Administrative Law Judge

C O V E R
-_. FAX
To: Mell Nevils 919-7
Floyd Williams 919-7
From: Anita LeVeaux
Associate Attorney General
Subject: Wm. Fred Walker, Jr. v.
04 EHR 2162
Date: August 24, 2005
Pages: 3, including this cover
COMMENTS: Please see attached
From the Desk of-
C. Hope young, l.ogat Assistant
North Carolina Departmcnt of Justice
Environmental Depatttncnt
9001 Moil Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699-9001
(919)71 G•6974
[phone]/Fax
hyouna(eitne'tlui.enm
TO'd 61:TT S0, bZ End 99Z9-9TZ-6T6:XVJ NOI 33S QNtil'8 d31UM

RUG, 23. 2005 1; 52PM
R08INSON BRADS14AW & HIN$ON
To, Ms. Anita Levetiaa
Ucadon: Attorney GeneraP8 Oil[ee
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
From: William. W.
COMMaNTe:
Date: August 23, 2005
N1lmber of Pages (inelttding this page):
will NOT follow
will follow by..
filar Mail
NO, 519 P. 1
CliantWatter: 18494.00011
THB INPORMATIDH CCPTTAMED IN ME T11MCOPY MAY AN, PAA7LPOED ANDJ01 t10PU+1OBNTIAL AND IR A9ElSpRb ONLY POR THR 11E6 Or THE
M" TO WHOM 1T IS ADDRE➢SM. If THE READER O➢ THIS MsetAal O HOT THE INTENDED RiLTP1 NT (OR SUCH RECI➢UINV8 EMPLOY86 OR
AGENT), YOU ARE HERESY NOTIPf80 NOT TO READ, WSTROUTE 0100" THB MATa ALR ATTACHED HER1TO WITHOUT THR ➢ll1ON. WRITTEN
CONSENT OF THE BENDER, IP YOU HAVE RECEIVED TH1/ 71007Y IN RRROA, PWN NOTIFY THE SENDRR EY COLLECT TELEPH ON,B CA4L AND
RETURN no ORYDWAL TSLBCOTY TO V6 BY IWH.MMW WILL'R61MUPflKYOUrOAYaHi3QUEkWPDSTA(M, THANKYOU.
AHeraeys et Law
Q%doHa Oflioe: 10114offh Tryon Street, Wte 1900, Charlotte, NC 28246 Ph; 704.377.2536 Px: 704.376.4000
South Carolina C3MM 140 BRet Main Street, Suite 420, P.O, Drawer 12070, Rock Hill, SC 29731 Yh; e03.323.2900 Px: SM3254929
ZO'd OZ:TT So, bZ 6nd 99Z9-9TZ-6T6:xPJ NOI103S QNH� 8 d31Hm

AUG, 23, 2005 1; 53PM NO. 519 P. 2
ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON
WL61AM W,'MOLE DIRECT DIAL: 70a,377.0373
CMAIeLOTM QFFICE DIReCT FAx; 704.373.3973
August 23, 2005
W F; 1 ZW-3hill
WrOOLtr@lea M.COM
Ms. Anita T eVeaux
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
ktaleigh, NC 27699
Re; WM. Fred Walker, Jr. v.' N. C, Dept. of Environmeat and Natural Rewources, Case
No. 04-EER-2162
Dear Anita:
I have spoken to my clients�Idaconfirmed thatthey will dismiss the petition in the
above referenced matter with prejudnea the North American Emerald Mines permit is
revised to roflect that permitted blasting levels will be one quarter the power currently allowed
under the permit, and that no blasting OW1 occur without a warning 30 minutes prior to a blsat
disohargo.
Thank you for your efforts inI this matter. Plosae let me know if you believe this
agreement needs to be reduced Author in writing, or if this letter agreement will suffice.
Sincerely,
ROBINSON, BRAD§MkW & MNSON, P.A.
William W. Toole
WWVspd
cc: Jennifer F. Revelle, Esq.
Ms, Dorothy Lewis Watkins
At. William Fred Walker, Jr,
C•94732gul 1R494.00011
Atto=ya at Law
Charlotte Ounce: 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900, Charlotte, NC 29146 Ph: 704,377.2536 Fx; 704.378,4000
8oath Carolina Office: 140 Best Main Street, Suite 420, P,O. Arawer 12070, Rook Hill, SC 29731 ➢b: $03.316.2000 Fx: 903.32S.2929
90'd OZ:TT S0, bL 6% 99Z9-9TZ-6T6:xej NOI103S QNH�'8 d31HN

08/24;2005 14:53 9197158801 N DENR DLR PAGE 01
f T� Ri
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E. Michael F, Easley, Governor
Oirectorand State Geologist William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SKEET
FROM:
DATE:
FAXNi UMBER:'?' I-hQ -14.3 NUMBEROFPAGES: JA
PHONENUMBER - ! SENDER'SFAXT40O _ _
R8- SENDER'S PHONENUMHER: /i',,,,.;Y V
El URGENT ❑ FOR REVIEW ❑ PLEASE COMMENT Is PLEASE REPLY
Geological Survey • Land Quality - Geodetic Survey
Division of Land Resources - 1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
512 North Saltsbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
919-733-38331 FAX: 919-715-a801 t lnternst www.di[enr. state,no,us/dlr.htm
An Equal Opponunity 1 ALfirmaNve Action Employer- 60% Recycled l 10% Past Consumer Paper

08/24/20H5 14:53 9197158801 NC DENR DLR PAGE 02
C O V E. R
F.A.
S H E E T
To- Mell Nevils 919.733 2876
Floyd Williams 919-715.8801
ftom: AnitaLcVcaua
Associate Attorney Genera]
Subject: Wm. Reed Walker, Jr. v.
04 EHR 2162
Date: August24,2005
Pages: 3, including this
COADd ENTS: Please see at0
From the Desk of.,
C. Hope YOM& t,eghl M,;t;;t
North C"01104 Dopo ncnt 9rAu5Em
Enrironme069 r"dmuni
9001 Mo+1 Service Cemar
Ra1eigkNL27699-9001
(919171M04
(919 716-6766IFne
hymmsoe ncVkj.c.�

08l24f2005 14:53 9197158801 WC DENR DLR PAGE 03
AUG.23. 200; 1,�,2PM NO, 519 P. I
ROBINSON BRADS14AW S HINSOH
FAw� t:oV�sllnrr. r
7bt Ms. MHz 1A
T ocatiaa Attorney Gei
Tee: 919M6-6971
Ir'mn 919171"766
Rroar. `EYillidm W.
Aatet August23.2005
Number ofPgx {maluding this pap):
U OdAw WKMT inMM
/Y{]YNw�py IIl�ALSRA�A RfAAaP.ADq O>'
AGtl[fC� YOlfAl6ffi114P1i077i�$p NPTTOIBAb� pp
IFMWU779Y =ML 11'7SN HAVE A80SIt'AT11m!
CHM104saw. 18494.D0011
9.Ja Rmii'� WiLPPnI'N618B OF 7f6
Mbk=To MMaCLra E PI wx oA
9�11Yi7p A71f4➢T 7Na iAGP 1YIItT[F}I
Zn WLL8fII 7ffi3T�Im C,V.L M9
om.1� WY1C7at
It LM
Cidd6 Offiw;101164. %F %n 5niK bufm t8 Clmdgk, NC a82.16 Pb: Tbl9772s36 pc 7Dt.376+1GDp
5outl+CK0iUOffi= 140 FMMft Snry Sala42U,PA. D.. JIM, W1Li1, BCssTa1 Ylw aesasazoae Pse SQ3.s23a929
>... _

08l24;2005 14:53 9197158801 NC DENR DLR
PAGE B4
AVG, 212005 1:53PM
No, 519
ROBINSON 13RA13SHAW & HINgUN
WLLMM W. teoi,a
Me, AuiULeVesmc
N c De m== oPJuIdgp
Euvir� Divietca
9001 klw tlmviee Ceaw
1414%NC 27699
Xa W9. Fmd II'afer; Jr.
No. 04-EM-2162
DwAnk m
P. 2
Drve bw - }Ci.377.e373
D RWr r v,' 704.373.ao73
HTooXcp"N.Oom
AURW23, 2M
efI5'w= ssrmrdNaturalR�aacas, caw
I hove spolues to MY aemCtrmcd UW J, wM diamiae She pedd= la he
ehovvickm and mum wlat =0 th 14DM ttmerlmn gib M MM
b /arala will be me qua= lhb paver a y gvted
uAdc Pam, tmd a hlsatlag d all ac= WWW a Warning 30 nwj"ulCJ pft to a bleat
You fox your Am* ir� ft m►uor. MW let mo know it yvu believe fits agronmant needs to be rednoed antlta I yybyp& aci£161a beat ag =ftmt will sumot,
f �121CQtyjyi
AABIDIgoN, MZAD
WHAW dtklll�Tsl]N P
W+1gtm W. Toole
4�PFV1 samifirF. Rewtiy
kit, DbmthY tmwb WxUdw
)&- WilllamPred WallM Jr,
cw7mri isauffa t
Cbr1DRe0gIFalaLNarth Aaomp 411e '
aeuthcam.OM=ua&ttUns s I o,t�0°sricotaaar>,:�roaa77.osas :7oa.3-is,uoo
A4o,P.tl lkxver iR076, RA.IcFh7I, aC74731 Y8: Y03.3,25.94bD >>+: 463.32S.RGZp

FILED
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Dee 20 12 04 PM 2005
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.
Petitioner
VS.
N. C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Respondent
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04 EHR 2162
NOTICE OF CLOSURE
Petitioner has filed a Voluntary Dismissal in the above -captioned matter. Therefore, no
fiuther proceedings are needed or required to resolve the contested case captioned above, and
this contested case is CLOSED.
This the 20th day of December, 2005.
J L. Co er, II
Administrative Law Judge
REs C D
DEC 212005
LAND QUALFTY SECTION �

SEP. 26. 2005 1:36PM
NO. 790 P. 1
COVER
-HEET
FAX
To: AnitaLeoeaux - Atty. General's office
J& (cc: . 13ill Duncan @ NAEM - 828/632-8815)
Fax #: 919/'1,15-8801
Subject: North American Emerald Mines, Inc.
Date: 9/26/p5
Pages: 2
COMMENTS:
Copy of letter w@ are sending to Mr, James; Simons at DENR
I
i
From the desk of..
Douglas 0. Eisele
Eisele, AshDdm, Greene & Chapman, PA.
P. 0. Box 1108
Statesville, NC 28687--1108
704I8Y"400
Fax 70Q924-870

SEP.26.2005 1:37PM N0.790 P. 2
EISELE, ASHBURN, GREENE & CHAPMAN, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
320 W. BROAD STREET
P.O. Box I 108
DOUGI-AS G. EISELEE $TATE3vILLE. NORTH CAROWNA 28687-1 I Oa TELEPHONE 704/878-G400
JAI'- P. A5H5URN
DOWN D. GREENE Fp 704/924.97@7
RU83ELL W. CHAPIAN, JR. September 26, 2005
Mr. James D.•Simons, PG, PE
NCDENR
Division of Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Re: North American Emerald Mines, Inc. (Permit No. 02-06)
Dear Mr. Simons:
Please accept this letter as a request by North American
Emerald Mine! a, Inc., that the referenced permit be amended as
follows:
a.: HX changing the verbiage in the permit to provide
that the maximum peak particle velocity is limited to one-
fourth:(1/4) of the current permit conditions;
b.: By requiring that NAEM give warning at least
thirty:(30) minutes prior to any blast, either by audible
signal or by personal notice, to the persons occupying the
structures near NAEM`s site that are currently occupied by
Mr. Fred Walker and Mrs. Dorothy Watkins.
Please 'provide to the undersigned, as counsel for NAEM, the
original or copy of the permit reflecting the referenced
amendments.
Douglay G. Eisele
DGE:lbj

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
WILLIAM FRED WALKER, JR., )
Petitioner, )
V. )
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT)
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, )
Respondent. )
TO: William W. Toole
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Jennifer F. Revelle
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
W� 101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04 EHR 2162
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSION
Attorneys for Petitioner Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.
Respondent, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR"),
through counsel, hereby answers Petitioner's Requests for Admission. The requests have been.
restated, as authorized by N.C. R. Civ. P. 36 and are followed by the Respondent's answers.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Respondent objects to the scope of these requests to the extent that they seek
information relating to: (1) information prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for
trial; (2) infonnation encompassed within the attorney -client and work product privileges; or (3)
any other information that is not properly discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure, State

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
1. NAEM did not give notice of its application for the modification of the permit in
2004 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl).
RESPONSE: DENIED.
2. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for modification of the permit in 2004
as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl) was defective.
RESPONSE: DENIED.
3. The modification of the permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2004.
RESPONSE: DENIED.
4. DENR did not give notice to all affected parties of NAEM's application for the
permit in 2002 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
5. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the permit in 2002 as required
by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
6. NAEM did not give notice of its application for modification of the permit in

10. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the permit in 2000 as required
by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
11. NAEM did not give notice of its application for the permit in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl)-(b2).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
12. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for the permit in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl)-(b2) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
13. The permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2000.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
18. NAEM has failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
19. NAEM's failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM is a violation
of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
20. NAEM has failed to take corrective measures to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
21. NAEM's failure to take corrective measures to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM is a violation
of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.

incidents shall have been submitted to and approved by DENR.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
26. NAEM has never reported to DENR an instance of flyrock being thrown beyond
the permitted and guarded areas.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit
No. 02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
27. NAEM's failure to report to DENR instances of flyrock beyond the permitted and
guarded areas is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
28. The deposition of flyrock into a waters of the state, waters of the U.S. or wetlands
without a permit is a violation of section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
administers section 404 of the Clean Water Act and would have to make a determination of its
violation. As the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not a parry to this contested case, this request
exceeds the permissible scope of inquiry under Rule 36.
29. Section 3(a) of the permit requires that any mining activity affecting waters of the
0

No. 02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
34. Section 4(a) of the permit requires NAEM to construct adequate mechanical
barriers to prevent sediment from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the
affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
35. NAEM has failed to construct adequate mechanical barriers to prevent sediment
from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
36. As a result of NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers,
sediment has discharged into a natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
37. NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers is a violation of the
permit.
11

41. Under N.C.G.S. §74-51(d)(2), DENR may deny a permit application upon finding
that the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
42. DENR has received complaints that blasting by NAEM has damaged wells that
deliver potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
43. DENR has not investigated the complaints that blasting by NAEM has damaged
wells that deliver potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
44. Where damage to a well that is the sole source of potable water to a dwelling is
due to blasting pursuant to the permit, such damage is an unduly adverse effect on potable
groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
or place, and is overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Respondent further objects as the request
seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, thereby exceeding the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26.
45. Where damage to multiple wells that are the sole source of potable water to
13

or leased by NAEM is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
49. Regulating the distance of the seismograph from the blast is not the proper means
of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit modification
which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site. As no
blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
50. The proper means of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels is to
require NAEM to place the seismograph on the same ridge of rock into which NAEM is blasting.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit modification
which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site. As no
blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
51. In order to obtain accurate readings of blasting levels at the mine, the seismograph
must be placed on the diorite rock into which NAEM is blasting.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
15

55. If NAEM is blasting within levels established by the permit, the permit sets those
blasting limits too high.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
56. James King Hill owns a majority stake in NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 56 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
57. James King Hill has a history of drug and alcohol abuse.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 57 may be construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
58. As a result of his drug and alcohol abuse, James King Hill has been denied a
driver's license by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 58 may be construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
59. On or about January 31, 2005, James King Hill was charged with assault
involving affliction of serious injury in Alexander County.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 59 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
60. On or about June 1, 2004, James King Hill was charged with carrying a concealed
weapon, driving while impaired and reckless driving/wanton disregard in Dare County, North
17

Carolina.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 65 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
66. Pursuant to the charges filed May 2, 1999, James King Hill pled guilty or was
found guilty by a judge of driving while impaired on or about September 9, 1999.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 66 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
67. Issuing a mining permit that allows blasting with explosives to a company whose
majority owner has a history of physical violence, drug and alcohol abuse is a violation of DENR
policy.
RESPONSE: Denied. Neither the Mining Act of 1971, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74-46 et seq. or N.C.
Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 5B.0101 et seq. require an applicant for a mining permit to disclose
personal information about a company's employees, agents and representatives.
This the day of 12005.
ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Bar No. 13667
N. C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Phone: [phone]
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
19

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
VERIFICATION
COUNTY OF WAKE
James D. Simons, P.G., P. E., first duly sworn, deposes and says he is the Director,
Division of Land Resources, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, that he has
read the foregoing Respondent's Response to Petitioners' Request for Admissions and that he is
familiar with all of the facts and circumstances stated therein; that the same is true of his own
knowledge except as to those matters and things stated and alleged upon information and belief,
and as to those matters and things he believes them to be true.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this the _ day of 2005.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
21
James D. Simons

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
WM. FRED WALKER, JR.,
Petitioner,
V.
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04-EHR-2162
PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO
RESPONDENT'S SECOND SET OF
DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Petitioner Fred Walker ("Petitioner") objects to Respondent N.C. Dept. of Environment
and Natural Resources' ("Respondent") Second Set of Discovery Requests on the grounds that
Respondent failed to make the requests in a timely fashion, as they were served after the close of
discovery as established by the Court's Order dated March 30, 2005.
Petitioner objects to Respondent's Second Set of Discovery Requests to the extent they
are overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Petitioner objects to Respondent's Second Set of Discovery Requests to the extent they
seek information protected by the attorney -client privilege and the doctrine preventing disclosure
of attorney -client work product.
Petitioner objects to the scope of Respondent's Second Set of Discovery Requests to the
extent they seek information not properly discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
C-93299M 18484.00011

Petitioner objects to the definitions and instructions contained in Respondent's Second
Set of Discovery Requests to the extent they seek to impose obligations other than those set forth
in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Without waiving these objections, Petitioner responds to the requests as follows:
INTERROGATORIES
1. With regard to your contention that the seismograph is improperly located, explain the
legal and factual basis for your contention (identifying facts, persons and documents as required
by the Definitions preceding this request).
Mr. Rocky Roberts, a landowner in the community, informs Petitioner that during
a visit to NAEM's mine, a representative of the company conducting the blasting showed him
the location of the seismograph. Mr. Michael Watkins, an expert in the region's geology,
indicates that at that location, the seismograph is set on a ridge of rock that is softer and more
shock-absorbant than the diorite rock into which the blasts are directed. As a result, the
seismograph reads vibrations significantly lower than those triggered in the diorite ridge that
runs through the adjoining properties. Only by placing the seismograph on the diorite itself will
NAEM achieve an accurate measure of the blasts' effects. Mr. Roberts' address is 1670 Church
Road, Hiddenite, North Carolina 28636. Mr. Watkins' address is 103 Emerald Hollow Mine
Road, Hiddenite, North Carolina 28636.
2. With regard to your contention that the bed of the creek was damaged by NAEM's
mining operations, explain the legal and factual basis for your contention (identifying facts,
persons and documents as required by the Definitions preceding this request).
C•932990d2 18484.00011

RESPONSE: See Petitioner's Response to Interrogatory 10 of Respondent's First Set of
Discovery Requests.
3. With regard to your contention that as a result of NAEM's mining operations, a landmark
is now gone, state the name and location of the landmark and explain the legal and factual basis
for your contention (identifying facts, persons and documents as required by the Definitions
preceding this request).
RESPONSE: See Petitioner's Response to Interrogatory 11 of Respondent's First Set of
Discovery Requests.
4. With regard to your contention that as a result of NAEM's mining operations adversely
affect the waters of the State, explain the legal and factual basis for your contention (identifying
facts, persons and documents as required by the Definitions preceding this request).
RESPONSE: The discovery by Petitioner and Dorothy Watkins of flyrock on the property
owned by Jack B. Wooten & Co. and located across the stream from the land subject to the
Permit leads to the reasonable inference that flyrock is falling into the stream in violation of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1344 and state regulations at 15A N.C.A.C. 2B
section .0200 and 15A N.C.A.C. 2H section .0500. This is a violation of section 3(A) of the
Permit.
C-932990V2 18484.00011

NAEM has constructed a non-public road a mere 27 feet from the stream in violation of
the requirement in Section 3(B) of the Permit that NAEM maintain a minimum 100-foot
undisturbed buffer between the affected land and any adjoining waterway. Furthermore, despite
the provision in Section 4(A) that obligates NAEM to establish mechanical barriers against
erosion, NAEM has taken no such precautions. Significant quantities of silt have been
discharged into the stream in violation of both the Permit and the Clean Water Act.
5. With regard to your contention that as a result of NAEM's mining operations have caused
structural damage to a nearby house, explain the legal and factual basis for your contention
(identifying facts, persons and documents as required by the Definitions preceding this request).
RESPONSE: NAEM's blasting under the Permit has caused substantial damage to the home
occupied by Dorothy Watkins and located on the property owned by D&M Emeralds, Inc. that
lies adjacent to the permitted area. The concrete -reinforced cinderblock walls of the home now
have numerous, sizable cracks due to the blasting that began in 2002. N.C.G.S. § 74-51(d)(4)
provides for permit denial where the operation constitutes a direct and substantial physical
hazard to a neighboring dwelling house. Petitioner produced copies of photographs responsive
to this request to Respondent on May 11, 2005. Petitioner is unaware of any additional
responsive documents.
6. With regard to your contention that as a result of NAEM's mining operations have
damaged wells that deliver potable groundwater, state the exact location of each well and explain
C-932990V2 18484.00011

the legal and factual basis for your contention (identifying facts, persons and documents as
required by the Definitions preceding this request).
RESPONSE: NAEM's blasting under the Permit has damaged at least three potable water wells
in the area. These wells provide the sole source of potable water for their respective owners, and
the damage from the blasting has polluted that water with large quantities of silt. The locations
of these wells are as follows:
(1) Jack B. Wooten & Co. property leased by Petitioner;
(2) D&M Emeralds, Inc. property adjacent to the land subject to the Permit;
(3) Property owned by Mr. Jerry Lackey along the Little South Yadkin River
approximately one-half to three-quarters of a mile from the land subject to the Permit;
Persons with knowledge of the damage to these wells include the following:
Petitioner
173 Riverside Farm Lane
Hiddenite, North Carolina 28636
Ms. Dorothy Watkins
P.O. Box 276
Hiddenite, North Carolina 28636
Mr. Jerry Lackey
760 Riverside Farm Lane
Hiddenite, North Carolina 28636
Mr. Jason Harris
877 Riverside Farm Lane
Hiddenite, North Carolina 28636
Mr. Randy Mitchell
851 Riverside Farm Lane
C-932990d2 18484.00011

Hiddenite, North Carolina 28636
Others not yet identified.
N.C.G.S. § 74-51(d)(2) provides for permit denial upon a finding that the operation will
have an undue adverse impact upon potable groundwater supplies.
7. With regard to your contention that the Permit sets the blasting levels too high, state the
blasting limits you contend are appropriate and explain the legal and factual basis for your
contention (identifying facts, persons and documents as required by the Definitions preceding
this request).
As evidenced by the damage to an occupied residence and at least three potable
wells and the flyrock that is landing outside the boundaries of the Permit area, the current
blasting levels under the Permit are too high. Petitioner does not currently have an opinion as to
what specific lower blasting levels would be appropriate. It is Respondent's statutory
responsibility to investigate and determine the appropriateness of blasting levels before allowing
blasting under the Permit. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§74-51(d) and (f). It is also Respondent's
statutory responsibility to investigate citizen complaints of serious property damage, flyrock, and
other issues that demonstrate the blasting levels under the Permit are too high prior to modifying
the Permit. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§74-51(d)(7) and 74-52(b). Respondent should determine what
blasting levels are appropriate before allowing blasting under the Permit to continue.
8. State the exact location of your residence on the Jack B. Wooten & Co. property and
identify all lease agreements and other documents which support and document its location.
C-93299M 18484.00011

RESPONSE: See Petitioner's Response to Interrogatory 16 c V
Discovery Requests. Documents responsive to this request an 0� oteb ,
County Register of Deeds. Respondent has access to these documer '` �)
(�1J J'(L1, Q w�
and Respondent may obtain these documents as easily as Petitioner. lU+
3ti"—
If
r
9. Describe in detail your responsibilities as caretaker of the Ja, ( j-�
and identify any and all written agreements or other documents between you and Mr. Wooten
which define these responsibilities.
RESPONSE: Petitioner's primary function is to patrol the Jack B. Wooten & Co. and Betty
Wooten land to prevent damage to the land and trespassing by people looking to hunt, dig for
gemstones or cut timber. As Mr. Wooten rarely visits the property, Petitioner is responsible for
protecting the land and preserving the resources on it. Petitioner's agreement with Mr. Wooten
is oral, so there are no documents responsive to this request.
10. With respect to the geologist you or your attorneys expect to call as an expert witness at
the hearing to be held on this matter, please provide the following information:
(a) Identify each such person;
(b) State the person's job title and professional qualifications;
(c) Describe the subject matter of which the geologist is expected to testify;
(d) Describe the substance of the facts to which the geologist is expected to testify;
C-932990J2 18484.00011

(e) Identify any and all documents which contain information pertaining to the
geologist's testimony.
RESPONSE: See Petitioner's Response to Interrogatory 14 of Respondent's First Set of
Discovery Requests.
This I (a-'4day of May, 2005.
Illiam W. Toole
N.C. Bar No. 16862
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, North Carolina 28246
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: wtoole(axbh.com
Je if F. Rlevelfe
N.C. Bar No. 32896
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, North Carolina 28246
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: irevelle(a)xbh.com
Attorneys for Petitioner Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.
C-93299M 18484.00011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S
SECOND SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS has been served upon each of the parties to this
action by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in an envelope(s) addressed as
follows:
Anita LeVeaux
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
[e-mail]
411
This 16 day of May, 2005.
J&Pif6r F. Revelle
G932990d2 18484.00011

Residents
concerned
about blasting
r
Some Hiddenite residents believe blasting at North American
Emerald Mines is causing damage to their homes.
North American Emerald Mines gets
approval for 94 acre blasting permit,
complaints trigger state hearing
By GARY HERMAN
Emeralds have seemingly put Hiddenite and Alexander County on
the map and in the national spotlight. With several notable
discoveries over the past few years, owners of North American
Emerald Mines, Inc. (NAEM), are almost certain there are more
emeralds present. To find those precious gems, it seems blasting
is necessary to break the rock; however, a number of Hiddenite
residents believe the blasting is causing damage to their homes

and water wells.
NAEM recently received approval from the N.C. Depart-ment of
Environment and Natur-al Resources to expand its mining
operation from approximately 12 acres to 94.6 acres, which the
residents believe will only cause more damage to their property.
An appeal concerning the modification of NAEM's mining permit is
on record in Raleigh, and a hearing has been scheduled for the
week of April 4, 2005, in Newton.
Leading the appeals process is William Fred Walker, Jr., and
Dorothy "Dottie" Watkins, both of who have mining experience as
well.
Walker is caretaker of the 107-acre Jack Wooten property in
Hiddenite, and he said he has personally seen the damage that
blasting can do to the foundations of local homes, in addition to
water wells.
His own well was drilled about three years ago, at a cost of
$4,000, which was necessary as he was having to carry water
over a half -mile to his residence from Greasy Creek.
"Every time they blast, sediment fills my well," Walker said. "I
have to take a five -gallon bucket, turn the hose on, let it settle,
and see how much sediment comes out. After every blast, the
sediment increases."
While the blasts are currently confined to a 12-acre parcel, Walker
believes much more damage will occur if the 94-acre permit
remains in effect, which prompted him and other local residents to
appeal the state's decision.
Walker visited several of his neighbors recently to inform them of
the possible damage to their homes' foundations.
"Neither had looked at their block work for cracks, but I spotted a
couple while I was there," Walker said.
Walker said that under normal circumstances, the blasting should
not affect foundations or wells.
They are trying to move as much rock as possible at one time,"
Walker said.
He noted that the last two blasts (in November) were "the
biggest. You could hear it and feel It."
Numerous complaints have been filed with the NCDENR over the
past two years citing excessive noise and damage to property.

"We don't want to stop them from blasting, but we do want to
lower the severity of the blasts," Walker said. "They could blast
four to five times a day, five days a week, and it wouldn't bother
anybody if they did reasonable, smaller blasts."
Ron Summers, President and CEO of NAEM, said the company has
violated no regulations, and that all blasts fall within the normal
parameters. He said that seismic information, recorded from a
seismograph located within 75 yards of the company's office
building, from each blast is reported to NCDENR.
"We pay a company (Sauls Seismic, Inc.) for their service to
ensure that we're in compliance with all the applicable laws and
regulations," Summers said. "We try to control the blasts as much
as we can. We have always been within the parameters [for sound
and vibration]."
Summers said the company contacts Watkins prior to each blast
to alert her.
"We have met with Dottie and explained that we want to be a
good neighbor," Summers related. "We thought a lot of good
came from that meeting."
While residents are crying foul over the current damage which
they believe is caused by the blasts, they see even further
potential for damage if the company is allowed to expand its
mining operation to almost 95 acres. But Summers said the
company is only blasting on a three -acre parcel at this time.
"We're currently mining less than three acres. That's the only part
we're blasting on," he said. "We could expand to 94.6 acres as the
information directs us, but that's a long way away."
Summers said NAEM doesn't currently have a blasting license;
therefore, a licensed company, Dynonoble of Olin, N.C. is hired to
perform the blasting.
"We set the charges, lay the dynamite, but Dynonoble actually
does the blast," Summers said.
He noted that contracting with Dynonoble is temporary until NAEM
secures its own blasting license.
The company blasts about once every three weeks, according to
Summers.
"We blast as the weather or the equipment allows," he said. "Our
goal is to get a pattern of blasting so the neighbors can be aware
of that."

Summers said he was unaware of the residents' alleged damage.
"No one has discussed anything of that nature with me. I'm not
aware of damaging any wells or anything," he said. "Our well is on
site, and we've never had any problems. We get complaints for
dynamite on days that we're not even blasting."
Summers said he believes the company is close to finding an
abundance of emeralds, which will, in effect, raise the property
values of Hiddenite residents.
"We're concerned about adding value not only to North American
Emerald Mines and our neighbors, but to the state of North
Carolina," he said. "This is the only producing emerald mine in
North America, and we're the only emerald mine in North America
having to deal with a hard rock surface.
He continued, "We have to dynamite to blast the rock to get at
the emerald pockets. If we find emeralds here, everybody's land
value goes up. We have evidence there are emeralds, but it's in
solid rock."
"We certainly try to do things not to upset people," Summers
concluded.
Watkins, who owns Hiddenite Gems and D&M Emeralds, said she
has no doubt that the blasting is causing the damage to her and
her neighbors' property.
"It is up to us to stop them from blasting Alexander County to
pieces," she said. "Everybody depends on wells and septic tanks.
If you destroy this on everybody's property, what will our county
become? One blast scared me so bad that I dropped all my
groceries I had in my hand."
Watkins renovated her current home in the fall of 2000, and she
said the cracks in her cinderblock wall and foundation began to
appear in 2002, about the same time the blasting began.
"I would not have done anything to a place with that much
damage," she said.
Watkins said she has filed three written complaints and four verbal
complaints with NCDENR, and has visited NAEM several times to
express her displeasure.
"I've been complaining for over 1.5 years," Watkins stated. "All
the neighbors are calling me."
Watkins received a complaint response dated Dec. 1, 2004, from
NCDENR stating that NAEM's seismographic information was in

compliance. The letter reads: "Our office has completed its review
of North American Emerald Mines, Inc.'s blasting information,
including blast reports and seismograph recordings... It was found
that North American Emerald Mines, Inc. was in compliance with
the blasting requirements of its mining permit during the period in
question. All peak particle velocities, a measurement of ground
vibration with units in inches per second (ips), were well below the
maximum allowable limits specified in North American Emerald
Mines, Inc.'s mining permit. More specifically, all recorded values
were at or below .04 ips at the closest offsite occupied structure.
According to extensive research by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and
others, particle velocities below 0.5 ips effectively eliminate the
possibility of any structural damage."
The letter did note that some readings were slightly elevated, but
still within the maximum limits specified in NAEM's mining permit.
The company was contacted and asked to review its procedures to
determine if any adjustments could be made to reduce future
citizen complaints.
Watkins said she believes the company isn't correctly using the
seismograph.
"I think they are setting it on something that won't shake it
properly," she said. "I'm not trying to make them stop blasting.
I'm asking that they use modern procedures. They can do it where
nobody even knows you're blasting."
Jim Simons, director for NCDENR's Division of Land Resources,
said at least two appeals have been filed with his office.
"Unless they can prove that their operation has bad effects, we're
bound by law to give them the mining permit. The company
notified the local government and adjoining landowners before
applying for the permit," Simons said. "A mine operator must
keep a detailed record of blasting. They must monitor each shot
with a seismograph by a third party. When we get a complaint, we
go back to the mine operator to request records."
Simons said there are universally -recognized blasting limitations
set forth by the U.S. Geological Survey.
"We feel they are pretty conservative," he said. "If the blasts stay
under the limits, there shouldn't be any damage to adjoining
property. We have not found any evidence that these blasts
should be doing damage. There are a thousand other reasons that
could be causing the cracking [in walls and foundations]."
He continued, "The seismographs are done by a reputable
consultant. They would lose their license and could be arrested for
falsifying reports, and we are seeing nothing that would lead us to
believe they are falsifying records. We're trying to provide the

best level of protection we can."
Some Hiddenite residents are calling for stricter enforcement by
the state, but Simons said the department is fairly short-handed,
with only seven full-time positions in the area of mining, which
includes three field inspectors, to review about 950 mines in the
state.
"We have to rely on third -party reports," he said.
Simons said the litigation is underway, with a hearing scheduled
for April 2005 in Newton.
"We issue a couple of hundred permits each year, and only receive
one to two appeals each year. It is rare for one to go to a
hearing," Simons said. "We do want people to feel like we've
addressed their welfare. We try to be as strict as we can with our
limited ability in the mining program."

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
WM. FRED WALKER, JR.,
Petitioner,
V.
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFIC
ADMINISTRATIVE
04-EHR-21,
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO HAVE
ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED OR
TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
Pursuant to Rules 36 and 37 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule
.0112 of the Rules of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Petitioner Fred Walker
("Petitioner") hereby requests that the OAH find Respondent N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources' ("Respondent") responses to Petitioner's Requests for Admission
("Requests") insufficient. At issue is Respondent's refusal to answer those requests directed to
statutory notice defects, permit violations, improper permit terms, and the trustworthiness of the
permit holder's controlling shareholder to have access to explosives. Each of these issues is, at a
minimum, relevant to determining whether Respondent was arbitrary and capricious when it
issued the contested permit. Petitioner therefore moves the OAH to deem admitted all Requests
Respondent has not expressly denied or, in the alternative, to compel Respondent to provide full .
and complete responses to all Requests. In support of this motion, Petitioner shows the
following:
1. Petitioner leases and cares for real properties that have been damaged by blasting allowed
under a mining permit (the "Permit") Respondent issued improperly to North American Emerald
Mines, Inc. ("NAEM"). Most recently, Respondent issued the Permit eleven days before the full
C-931532v3 18484.00011

30 day notice period and without giving notice of the public's right to request a public healing.
Now, blasting conducted under color of the Permit has polluted Petitioner's water well and
thrown flyrock onto the land he leases and oversees, in direct violation of the Permit.
2. On April 14, 2005, Petitioner served Requests for Admission on Respondent. The
Requests sought admissions with regard to four aspects of this case: (1) procedural defects in the
issuance and subsequent modifications of the Permit (Requests 1-14); (2) substantive defects in
the Permit, namely the excessive level of blasting allowed and the provision ordering improper
placement of the seismograph (Requests 41-46 and 49-55); (3) serious violations of the Permit
by NAEM (Requests 15-40, 46-48); and (4) the criminal record of James King Hill, NAEM's
majority owner, who has a lengthy history of violence and alcohol -related offenses (Requests 56-
67).
3. On May 2, 2005, Petitioner's counsel received Respondent's response to the Requests, a
copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. With respect to 60 of the 67 Requests served,
Respondent made blanket objections and refused to admit or deny the Requests.
4. With regard to the first three categories of Requests described in Paragraph 2 above —
procedural defects in the public notice, an excessive blasting limit resulting in substantial
property damage, and documented flyrock and road building violations of the express terms of
the Permit — Respondent objected on the grounds that the Requests were not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Respondent asserted
that the procedural validity of the Permit, the Permit's terms and conditions, and NAEM's
violations of the Permit are not relevant to whether Respondent validly modified the Permit on
October 27, 2004.
5. Discovery on each of these subjects could not be more central to this Court's evaluation
of the propriety of the 2004 modification. If Respondent issued the original Permit pursuant to a
C-931532v3 18484.00011

defective notice process in 2000, the Permit was invalid ab initio and no subsequent modification
can be valid. See Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Town of Sanford, 188 N.C. 218, 220, 124 S.E.
308, 308 (1924)(city's subsequent assessments were invalid where aldermen failed to give
statutory notice to adjoining landowners; time to file objections does not begin where statutory
notice not given). The same reasoning applies with respect to the 2002 modification. If the
original issuance and 2002 modification were invalid, there was no valid permit for Respondent
to modify in 2004.
6. Respondent's files do in fact demonstrate that neither the original 2000 issuance nor the
2002 modification occurred in accordance with statutory procedure found at N.C. Gen. Stat §74-
50. Adjoining landowner D&M Emeralds, Inc. ("D&M") received no notice from either NAEM
or DENR in either instance. Attached as Exhibit B are the deeds to a portion of the land subject
to the Permit, land now owned by NAEM. Attached as Exhibit C is D&M's January 25, 1999
deed, filed on January 27, 1999, describing D&M's tract as Lot #1 of the Rist Mine. Attached as
Exhibit D is a plat of the Rist Mine showing the common property line of D&M and NAEM.
The property now owned by NAEM is identified as being owned by LKA International, Inc. on
Exhibit D. Exhibits B, C and D are on file with the Alexander County Register of Deeds.
Exhibits B and C may also be found at the official website of the Alexander County Register of
Deeds, www.alexanderrod.com. D&M was entitled to the notice of permit application, permit .
issuance, and permit modifications described in N.C. Gen. Stat §74-51.
7. Respondent's files contain Affidavits of Notification NAEM submitted in conjunction
with both its 2000 and 2002 applications. Neither affidavit lists D&M among the parties entitled
to notice. The NAEM affidavits are attached as Exhibit E. Respondent's internal memorandum
states that Notices of Issuance were sent only to the parties listed on NAEM's affidavit in 2000.
The 2000 memorandum is attached as Exhibit F. Respondent's files contain no corresponding
C-931532v3 18484.00011

memorandum regarding Notices of Issuance in 2002. D&M in fact reports that it did not receive
any notice of the Permit issuance in 2000 or of the 2002 amendment. Thus, Respondent also.
Because D&M did not receive the mandatory notices in either 2000 or 2002, the Permit was
invalidly issued in 2000 and invalidly modified in 2002.
8. Under Orange County v. North Carolina Dept. of Transportation, 46 N.C. App. 350,
360-61, 265 S.E.2d 890, 895-96 (1980) and Empire Power Co. v. North Carolina Dept. of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, 112 N.C. App. 566, 571, 436 S.E.2d 594, 598
(1993), rev'd on other grounds, 337 N.C. 569, 590, 447 S.E.2d 768, reh'g denied, 338 N.C. 314,
451 S.E.2d 634 (1994), Petitioner has an interest as a citizen in Respondent's compliance with
the public notice provisions that govern permit issuance. The validity of the 2000 issuance and
2002 modification bear directly on whether a valid permit exists that Respondent could properly
amend in 2004. Thus, Requests 4-14 regarding procedural defects in the 2000 issuance and 2002
modification fall within the scope of discoverable information under Rule 26, information
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
9. The Requests regarding substantive defects in the Permit terms and Permit violations bear
directly on the validity of the 2004 modification. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§74-51(d)(7) and 74-52(b)
provide that a permittee's failure to be "in substantial compliance" with the Mining Act is
grounds for denying a permit modification. Had Respondent complied with the statutory notice
provisions for permit issuance and amendment and not cut the period short by 11 days, it would
have heard from the community about homes and water wells physically damaged by NAEM's
blasting, rock flying beyond the permitted area, illegal road construction beside a stream, and
other substantive problems with the Permit terms and NAEM's compliance with the Permit.
Petitioner's Requests pertaining to substantive Permit defects and Permit violations are directly
relevant to whether Respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously in granting NAEM's 2004
C-931532,:3 18464.00011 4

modification without lowering the blasting level and ensuring NAEM was in compliance with its
obligations under the Permit.
10. Respondent's objections to the Requests regarding James King Hill's documented
charges and criminal judgments for physical violence and substance abuse on the grounds that
they "may be construed as seeking or [do] seek information not within the personal knowledge
of Respondent" do not meet the obligation to make reasonable inquiry. Mr. Hill was until
recently the President of NAEM and, upon information and belief, remains a majority and
controlling shareholder of NAEM. Certainly, he has corresponded with Respondent on many
occasions on behalf of NAEM, and a phone call or letter from Respondent looking into the issues
would not be burdensome. Rule 36 requires that "[a]n answering party may not give lack of
information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless he states that he has
made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily available to him is
insufficient to enable him to admit or deny." Respondent does not make any statement about its
inquiry efforts, apparently because it made no effort to investigate these Requests. In fact, the
answers to these requests are a matter of easily obtained public record. Attached as Exhibit G
are the results of the criminal background check Petitioner's counsel performed on Mr. Hill in
the Westlaw database. A brief call to the Dare County clerk's office confirmed the allegation in
request 61 that Mr. Hill was scheduled to face trial on various criminal charges on April 22,
2005. Respondent failed to make any inquiry, much less a reasonable inquiry, into these
requests.
11. Petitioner regrets it must impose upon this Court to compel the responses to which
Petitioner Walker is entitled. Upon reviewing Respondent's response to the Requests, Petitioner
tried to resolve this matter informally, sending Respondent's counsel a letter on May 3, 2005,
pointing out the deficiencies in the response and requesting that Respondent provide substantive
C-931532V3 18484.00011

responses. Though the deadline for answering the Requests had passed, Petitioner's counsel
offered to extend Respondent's time to answer until May 9, 2005 if Respondent would agree to
amend its responses. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit H. When Petitioner's
counsel received no response to this letter, Petitioner's counsel left a voice -mail message for
Respondent's counsel at approximately 7:20 a.m. on May 5 asking Respondent's counsel to
answer the letter. Upon receiving no response to this voice -mail message, Petitioner proceeded
to file this motion. By objecting to these Requests rather than investigating and answering their
assertions, Respondent continues to treat this case as a procedural exercise rather than an
opportunity to perform its statutory duty.
12. Under Rule 36 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, '[i]f the court determines
that an answer does not comply with the requirements of [the] rule, it may order either that the
matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served." The attached evidence demonstrates
that Respondent must admit Petitioner's Requests. In light of this compelling evidence and in
consideration of judicial economy, Petitioner asks that the OAH deem his Requests admitted. In
the alternative, Petitioner asks that the OAH compel Respondent to answer the Requests fully
and completely within 15 days or such other time as the OAH deems reasonable.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner moves the OAH to deem admitted all requests Respondent
has not expressly denied or, in the alternative, to compel Respondent to provide a full and
complete response to all requests. Petitioner also asks that the OAH grant Petitioner such other
relief as the OAH deems just and proper.
C-931532v3 18484.00011

This J day of May, 2005.
_.Cv,2,�,
William`W. Toole
N.C. Bar No. 16862
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, North Carolina 28246
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: wtoole@ com
A —�—
Jenni er 13. Revel Ie
N.C. Bar No. 32896
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, North Carolina 28246
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: irevelle r com
Attorneys for Petitioner Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.
C-931532v3 18484,00011

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing PETITIONER'S MOTION TO HAVE
ADMITTED OR To hPPoR�saOnbTO Rb
FADMISSIONS OR ADMISSION has been eed up othis ydeposing salve to
the United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested in an envelope(s) addressed as
follows:
Anita LeVeaux
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
[e-mail]
This ,5� day of May, 2005.
4jef4eF. Revelle
C-931532v3 18,184.00011

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
WILLIAM FRED WALKER, JR., )
Petitioner, )
V. )
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT)
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, )
Respondent. )
TO: William W. Toole
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Jennifer F. Revelle
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04 EHR 2162
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSION
Attorneys for Petitioner Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.
Respondent, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR"),
through counsel, hereby answers Petitioner's Requests for Admission. The requests have been
restated, as authorized by N.C. R. Civ. P. 36 and are followed by the Respondent's answers.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Respondent objects to the scope of these requests to the extent that they seek
information relating to: (1) information prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for
trial; (2) information encompassed within the attorney -client and work product privileges; or (3)
any other information that is not properly discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure, State

statutes, or the common law.
2. Respondent objects to these requests as unduly burdensome and oppressive to the
extent they seek information already in Petitioner's possession.
Respondent further objects to these requests to the extent they assume facts that
do not exist or are incorrect.
4. Respondent objects to any request that seeks information that is irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Respondent assumes no duty to supplement its answers except to the extent
required by Rule 26(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent reserves the right to modify,
amend, or add to its responses or objections.
To the extent applicable, Respondent incorporates by reference all of these General
Objections into its Responses below.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
NAEM did not give notice of its application for the modification of the permit in
2004 as required byN.C.G.S. §74-50(b1).
RESPONSE: DENIED.
2. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for modification of the permit in 2004
as required byN.C.G.S. §74-50(bl) was defective.
RESPONSE: DENIED..
The modification of the permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2004.
RESPONSE: DENIED.
4. DENR did not give notice to all affected parties of NAEM's application for the
permit in 2002 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-5l(b).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
5. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the permit in 2002 as required
byN.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
6. NAEM did not give notice of its application for modification of the permit in

2002 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
7. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for modification of the permit in 2002
as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
8. The modification of the permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2002.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
9. DENR did not give notice to all affected parties of NAEM's application for the
permit in 2000 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
El

10. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the permit in 2000 as required
byN.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
11. NAEM did not give notice of its application for the permit in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S.§74-50(bl)-(b2).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
12. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for the permit in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl)-(b2) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
13. The permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2000.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

under Rule 26.
14. The permit is null and void.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
15. Section 8(g) of the permit requires NAEM to take all reasonable precautions to
ensure that flyrock is not thrown beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently
guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
16. Section 8(g) of the permit provides that failure to take corrective measures to
prevent flyrock and repeated instances of flyrock shall be considered a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
17. Fyyrock has been thrown beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or
permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.

02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
18. NAEM has failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
19. NAEM's failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM is a violation
of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
20. NAEM has failed to take corrective measures to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
21. NAEM's failure to take corrective measures to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM is a violation
of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
7

02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
22. There have been repeated instances of flyrock being thrown beyond areas the
access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
23. Repeated instances of flyrock being thrown beyond areas the access to which is
temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM are a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
24. Section 8(h) of the permit requires that, should flyrock occur beyond the permitted
and guarded areas, NAEM must immediately report the incident to DENR.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
25. Section 8(h) provides that, after NAEM reports flyrock beyond the permitted and
guarded areas to DENR, further use of explosives at the mine shall be suspended until (1) a
thorough investigation as to the cause(s) of the incident has been conducted and (2) a detailed
report documenting the cause(s) of the incidents and actions to be taken to prevent further

incidents shall have been submitted to and approved by DENR.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
26. NAEM has never reported to DENR an instance of flyrock being thrown beyond
the permitted and guarded areas.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit
No. 02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
27. NAEM's failure to report to DENR instances of flyrock beyond the permitted and
guarded areas is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
28. The deposition of flyrock into a waters of the state, waters of the U.S. or wetlands
without a permit is a violation of section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1344.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
administers section 404 of the Clean Water Act and would have to make a determination of its
violation. As the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not a party to this contested case, this request
exceeds the permissible scope of inquiry under Rule 36.
29. Section 3(a) of the permit requires that any mining activity affecting waters of the

state, waters of the U.S. or wetlands shall be in accordance with the requirements and regulations
promulgated and enforced by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
30. Section 3(b) of the permit requires that NAEM maintain a minimum 100-foot
undisturbed buffer between any affected land and any adjoining waterway or wetland.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
31.
roads.
RESPONSE:
Under N.C.G.S. §74-49(1), the definition of "affected land" includes non-public
Admitted to the extent that non-public roads are considered "affected land"
when used safely for the purpose of the permitted mining operation.
32. NAEM has constructed a non-public road within 27 feet of a stream.
RESPONSE: Denied.
33. NAEM's construction of a non-public road within 27 feet of a stream is a
violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit
10

No. 02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
34. Section 4(a) of the permit requires NAEM to construct adequate mechanical
barriers to prevent sediment from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the
affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
35. NAEM has failed to construct adequate mechanical barriers to prevent sediment
from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
36. As a result of NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers,
sediment has discharged into a natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
permit.
37. NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers is a violation of the
11

RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Pen -nit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
38. Section 4(b) of the permit requires that NAEM conduct mining activities as
indicated by the erosion and sedimentation control plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the
supplemental erosion and sedimentation control narrative and design calculations.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
VTa
39. NAEM has not conducted mining activities as indicated by the erosion and
sedimentation control plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the supplemental erosion and
sedimentation control narrative and design calculations.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
40. NAEM's failure to conduct mining activities as indicated by the erosion and
sedimentation control plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the supplemental erosion and
sedimentation control narrative and design calculations is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26
12

41. Under N.C.G.S. §74-51(d)(2), DENR may deny a permit application upon finding
that the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
42. DENR has received complaints that blasting by NAEM has damaged wells that
deliver potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
43. DENR has not investigated the complaints that blasting by NAEM has damaged
wells that deliver potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
44. Where damage to a well that is the sole source of potable water to a dwelling is
due to blasting pursuant to the permit, such damage is an unduly adverse effect on potable
groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
or place, and is overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Respondent further objects as the request
seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, thereby exceeding the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26.
45. Where damage to multiple wells that are the sole source of potable water to
13

dwellings is due to blasting pursuant to the permit, such damage is an unduly adverse effect on
potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
or place, and is overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Respondent further objects as the request
seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, thereby exceeding the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26.
46. Section 8 of the permit requires that the seismograph used to monitor blasts at the
mine be located at a distance no farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly occupied
structure not owned or leased by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
47. The seismograph used to monitor blasts at the mine is not located at a distance no
farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly occupied structure not owned or leased
by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
48. The fact that the seismograph used to monitor blasts at the mine is not located at a
distance no farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly occupied structure not owned
14

or leased by NAEM is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
49. Regulating the distance of the seismograph from the blast is not the proper means
of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit modification
which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site. As no
blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
50. The proper means of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels is to
require NAEM to place the seismograph on the same ridge of rock into which NAEM is blasting.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit modification
which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site. As no
blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
51. In order to obtain accurate readings of blasting levels at the mine, the seismograph
must be placed on the diorite rock into which NAEM is blasting.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
15

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
52. The permit should require that the seismograph be placed on the diorite rock.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that (1) the conditions of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and (2) the October
27, 2004 permit modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at
the mining site and no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage. The request therefore
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
53. DENR should set blasting levels in permits it issues low enough to prevent
structural damage to nearby houses and buildings.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
or place, and is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and does not describe with reasonable
particularity the information sought. Respondent further objects as the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site
and no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage. The request therefore seeks irrelevant
information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
thereby exceeding the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26.
54. Blasting NAEM has conducted pursuant to the permit has caused structural
damage to a nearby house.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
16

55. If NAEM is blasting within levels established by the permit, the permit sets those
blasting limits too high.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
56. James King Hill owns a majority stake in NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 56 may be construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
57. James King Hill has a history of drug and alcohol abuse.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 57 may be construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
58. As a result of his drug and alcohol abuse, James King Hill has been denied a
driver's license by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 58 may be construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
59. On or about January 31, 2005, James King Hill was charged with assault
involving affliction of serious injury in Alexander County.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 59 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
60. On or about June 1, 2004, James King Hill was charged with carrying a concealed
weapon, driving while impaired and reckless driving/wanton disregard in Dare County, North
fFll

Carolina.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 60 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
61. James King Hill is scheduled to be tried on the charges filed on June 1, 2004 in
Dare County on or about April 22, 2005.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 61 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
62. On or about December 19, 2003, James King Hill was charged with assault
involving affliction of serious injury in Alexander County.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 62 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
63. On or about February 15, 2000, James King Hill was charged with being
intoxicated and disruptive and causing damage to personal property in Catawba County, North
Carolina.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 63 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
64. Pursuant to the charges filed February 15, 2000, James King Hill pled guilty or
was found guilty by a judge of injury to personal property on or about June 28, 2000.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 64 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
65. On or about May 2, 1999, James King Hill was charged with carrying a concealed
weapon, driving while impaired, and causing injury to personal property in Iredell County, North
In

Carolina.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 65 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
66. Pursuant to the charges filed May 2, 1999, James King Hill pled guilty or was
found guilty by a judge of driving while impaired on or about September 9, 1999.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 66 maybe construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
67. Issuing a mining permit that allows blasting with explosives to a company whose
majority owner has a history of physical violence, drug and alcohol abuse is a violation of DENR
policy.
RESPONSE: Denied. Neither the Mining Act of 1971, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74-46 et seq. or N.C.
Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. 5B.0101 et seq. require an applicant for a mining permit to disclose
personal information about a company's employees, agents and representatives.
This the day of 2005.
ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Bar No. 13667
N. C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Phone: [phone]
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the undersigned has this date served the Petitioner's Requests for
Admission upon the Attorneys for Petitioner by Federal Express Priority Overnight mail,
addressed as follows:
William W. Toole
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Jennifer F. Revelle
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
This day of , 2005.
ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
K11

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
VERIFICATION
COUNTY OF WAKE
James D. Simons, P.G., P. E., first duly sworn, deposes and says he is the Director,
Division of Land Resources, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, that he has
read the foregoing Respondent's Response to Petitioners' Request for Admissions and that he is
familiar with all of the facts and circumstances stated therein; that the same is true of his own
knowledge except as to those matters and things stated and alleged upon information and belief,
and as to those matters and things he believes them to be true.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this the _ day of , 2005.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
21
James D. Simons