23 jun 2020 hearing transcript

DEQ Public Hearing
23 June 2020
6:00 p.m.
Re: Wake Stone Corporation RDU Quarry Pit Permit
Per Mr. Daniel Sams' request, the transcript of my comments at the subject public hearing
follows.
These comments were made and submitted by:
Kathleen Rusnak Weaver, P.E.
2912 Timpani Trail
Apex, NC 27539
Good Evening. My name is Kathleen Rusnak Weaver. I am a licensed Professional Civil Engineer
in NC. My position is that the permit request should be denied. My focus tonight is the water
quality related to sampling conducted by Wake Stone for the existing quarry.
The present quarry operates under General Storm water Permit NCG02. The permit contains
both "Stormwater Benchmarks" and quantitative limits. Pit water is defined in the permit as
wastewater. Discharges of wastewater or co -mingled storm water/wastewater have specific
limits that require water samples to be taken at the discharge point when discharge occurs.
Sample frequency is specified in the permit.
A review of recent DEMLR Laser fiche files for Wake Stone, Triangle Quarry was conducted.
"Annual Summary Discharge Monitoring Reports" were found for years 2015 through 2019.
DEMLR Laser fiche contains sampling results for Outfall 01. It appears the sampling has been
consistently performed incorrectly. The "Total Rainfall" column of the reports consistently
shows "no flow" written adjacent to each date. Quantitative analytical results are shown in
adjacent columns for those dates. This raises the question as to what source of discharge is
being sampled. Is the pond rather than a discharge being sampled? Compliance with the
storm water permit is dependent on this monitoring, yet the discharge itself does not appear to
be sampled.
Further, the Permittee often refers to this system as "closed loop,"for which the permit refers to
a recycle system; however, the permit application for expansion shows the present quarry to be
discharging. PDF page 143 of the application presents the NC DEQ Division of Water Resource
Water Withdrawal and Transfer Registration submittal for 2019, showing 29 discharges. The

Hydrogeologic narrative for the expansion quarry also states approximately 2 discharges per
month.
Sampling experience with the existing quarry indicates a considerable possibility that the
operation will result in substantial sediment deposits downstream of the quarry, and thus the
permit should be denied.
In addition, I would like the following paragraph included in the public record and taken into
consideration when determining whether or not to issue the permit:
Reports typically show quantitative sampling results for Outfalls SD06 and SD03. These appear
to be taken during rainfall events. One report for SDO-6/EQ-2 for 2015, specifically 12/17/15,
shows some values that are well over the "benchmarks" (i.e., actual TSS of 470 vs 100; turbidity
of 888 vs 50 NTU). The permit requires a response to this. No response documents were found
in this review of the Laser fiche. What response did Wake Stone Corporation make to these
values?