NCG020166_COMPLETE FILE - HISTORICAL_20181012

Steve Whitt
Director Environmental Services
October 12, 2018
By Email (Toby.Vinson@ncdenrgov)
Mr. William E. "Toby" Vinson, Jr.
Interim Director
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Reserves
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Re: Martin Marietta — Anticipated_ Bypass
Rocky Point Quarry — NPDES Permit COC No, NCG020166
Dear Mr. Vinson:
Pursuant to Part V, Section C.4 of General Permit No. NCG020000 (the "Permit"), this letter is to
advise the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (the "Department") of the
anticipated bypass of Martin Marietta's wastewater treatment systems at the Rocky Point
Quarry (the "Quarry") — NPDES Permit COC No. NCG020166, which is due to river flooding
from Hurricane Florence. The flooding at this location is the result of rivers upland from our
facility carrying water into the Quarry in connection with Hurricane Florence and the related
storm surge. It is currently anticipated that pumping in this manner will take up to six (6)
months. To safely and timely remove the water that has flooded the Quarry and to prevent
severe property damage, Martin Marietta is proposing to bypass its wastewater treatment works
at the Quarry and discharge directly from the Quarry to the Northeast Cape Fear River.
As a result of flood waters from Hurricane Florence, approximately 1.5 billion gallons of water are
now held in the Quarry. On September 17, 2018, Martin Marietta notified the Department of the
flood conditions at the Quarry. Consistent with Section C.4.c.(1)(A)-(B) of the Permit, bypass of
the wastewater treatment works at the Quarry is unavoidable to prevent severe property damage
due to prolonged flooding of the Quarry and the equipment located therein. Further, there is no
feasible alternative to the bypass as the volume of water in question is so great (up to 1.5 billion
gallons) that there is no way to process it through the normal treatment protocol in a time frame
that will not result in years long effort. Such an extended submersion of this site would force the
Quarry to close and the equipment permanently located in the Quarry pits will be severely
damaged or destroyed. Also, the enormous volume of water is more than the pumps can handle
and will result in property damage or destruction.
On October 4, 2018, Martin Marietta collected and analyzed a sample from the Quarry. The
results of that analysis are as follows:
2710 Wycliff Road,
Raleigh, NC 27607
t. [phone] f. [phone] email. [e-mail]
www.martinmarietta.corn

October 12, 2018
Page 2
Parameter
Result
Limit
7.81
6-9
_pH
Total Suspended Solids
Not Detected
25 mg/1
Turbidity
1.3 NTU
_
50 NTU'
Martin Marietta estimates that up to approximately 1.5 billion gallons of flood water will need to
be bypassed at a flow rate of up to approximately 24,000 gallons per minute ("gpm"). The actual
flow rate will vary depending on pumping and water level conditions (i.e., down time to replenish
fuel, move the portable pump as the water levels drop, etc.). Martin Marietta will utilize the normal
treatment systems when these systems become available and will improve the discharge.
Consistent with Section CA.b(1) of the Permit, because the water in question at the Quarry will
be returned to the Northeast Cape Fear River, which flooded the Quarry in the first instance, we
do not believe the water quality in the river will be materially adversely impacted by the anticipated
bypass.
Martin Marietta hereby requests that the Department approve, in writing and on an
emergency and temporary basis, the staging of multiple pumps around the Quarry once
the river recedes and the conditions allow, and discharge of the flood waters directly from
the Quarry to the Northeast Cape Fear River until normal water levels are observed in the
Quarry.
Due to Martin Marietta's desire to start pumping in order to be responsive to customers' needs
for stone to help in repairs and rebuilding, including those of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and a host of distressed municipalities, Martin Marietta is hoping for an
expedited resolution of this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there is
any additional information we can provide to you.
We appreciate your very prompt consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
41"t",
Steve Whitt
Director — Environmental Services
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
cc: Sill Lane (Sill_Lane(o-)ncdenr.Qov)
Annette Lucas (An nettee.Luca s(a)ncdenr.gov)
' With respect to turbidity, no limit in the effluent discharge applies, but turbidity in the receiving
waters shall not exceed 50 NTU as a result of the wastewater discharge.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GENERAL PERMIT NO. NCG020000
CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE No. NCG020166
STORMWATER AND PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Martin Marietta Materials Inc
is hereby authorized to discharge stormwater and to operate treatment systems and discharges associated
with mine dewatering wastewater and process wastewater from a facility located at
Martin Marietta -Rocky Point
1635 Martin Marietta Rd
Rocky Point
Pender County
to receiving waters designated as a UT of the Northeast Cape Fear River, a class B-Sw stream in the Cape
Fear River Basin in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions
set forth in Parts 1, 11, ill, IV, V, and VI of General Permit No. NCG020000 as attached.
This certificate of coverage shall become effective February 7, 2005.
This Certificate of Coverage shall remain in effect for the duration of the General Permit.
Signed this day February 7, 2005
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Michael F. Easley, Covernor
William C. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 7, 2005
Donald M Moe
Martin Marietta Materials Inc
PO Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 276220013
Subject: NPDES Stormwater Permit Coverage Renewal
Martin Marietta -Rocky Point
COC Number NCGO2O166
Pender County
Dear Permittee:
In response to your renewal application for continued coverage under general permit NCGO2OOOO the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is forwarding herewith the reissued stormwater general permit. Please review the new permit to familiarize
yourself with the changes in the reissued permit. The general permit authorizes discharges of stormwater and some types of
wastewater. You must meet the provisions of the permit for the types of discharges present at your facility. This permit is
reissued pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between the state of North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated December 6, 1983.
The following information Is included with your permit package:
• A new Certificate of Coverage
A copy of General Stormwater Permit NCGO2OOOO
A copy of a Technical Bulletin for the general permit
• Five copies of Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Forms - wastewater and stormwater
Five copies of Qualitative Monitoring Report Form
Your coverage under this general permit is not transferable except after notice to DWQ. The Division may require modification
or revocation and reissuance of the Certificate of Coverage. This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other
permits which may be required by DENR or relieve the permittee from responsibility for compliance with any other applicable
federal, stale, or local law, rule, standard, ordinance, order, judgment, or decree.
If you have any questions regarding this permit package please contact Bethany Georgoulias of the Central Office Stormwater
Permitting Unit at [phone], ext.529.
Sincerelv, II IL
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
cc: Central Files
Stormwater & General Permits Unit Files
Wilmington Regional Office
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Internet: h2o enr.state.nc.uslsulstormwater.html 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604
One
N,,orthCarolina
Natitralllf
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110%a Post Consumer Paper

if
4 State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
December 17, 1999
ROBERT WINCHESTER
MARTIN MARIETTA - ROCKY POINT
P. O. BOX 30013
RALEIGH, NC 27622
1 � •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLfNA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subject: Reissue - NPDES Stormwater Permit
Martin Marietta - Rocky Point
COC Number NCG020166
Pender County
Dear Permittee:
In response to your renewal application for continued coverage under general permit NCG020000, the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is forwarding herewith the reissued stormwater general permit. This permit is reissued
pursuant to the requirements of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between the state of North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, dated December 6, 1983.
The following information is included with your permit package:
* . A copy of general stormwater permit NCG020000
* Five copies of the Analytical Monitoring form and five copies of the Qualitative Monitoring form
* A copy of a Technical Bulletin on this permit which outlines permit components and
addresses frequently asked questions
* A Certificate of Coverage for your facility
* DWQ fee schedule
Your coverage under this general permit is not transferable except after notice to DWQ. The Division may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the Certificate of Coverage. This permit does not affect the legal
requirements to obtain other permits which may be required by DENR or relieve the permittee from responsibility
for compliance with any other applicable federal, state, or local law rule, standard, ordinance, order, judgment, or
decree.
Please note that in 1998 Senate Bill 1366 established changes to the permit fee structure for DWQ permits effective
January 1, 1999. This change requires that you pay an annual fee to assure continued coverage under this permit.
You will be invoiced for this fee beginning next year. A copy. of the current fee schedule is included with this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this permit package please contact Tony Evans of the Central Office Stormwater
and General Permits Unit at [phone], ext. 584
Sincerely,
for Kerr T. Stevens
Director, Division of Water Quality
cc: Central Files
Wilmington Regional Office
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GENERAL PERMIT NO. NCG020000
CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE No. NCG020166
STORMWATER AND PROCESS WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards and
regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
MARTIN MARIETTA
is hereby authorized to discharge stormwater and to operate or continue operation of treatment systems and
discharges associated with mine dewatering and process wastewater from a facility located at
MARTIN MARIETTA - ROCKY POINT
1635 MARTIN MARIETTA ROAD
ROCKY POINT
PENDER COUNTY
to receiving waters designated as a UT of the Northeast Cape Fear River in the Cape Fear River Basin in accordance
with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts 1, I1, I11, IV, V, and VI
of General Permit No. NCG020000 as attached.
This certificate of coverage shall become effective December 17, 1999.
This Certificate of Coverage shall remain in effect for the duration of the General Permit.
Signed this day December 17, 1999.
for Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

WESSE=, & IR ANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT hAW
I.07-B NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OFFTCE BOX 1049
WrrNUNGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402
.TonN C. WE,SSELL, III
WILLIAM A. RANEY, JR.
June 1, 2001
Mr. Bradley Bennett
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
TELEPnoNE 910-762.7475
FAX [phone]
E-MAILWANDR1aDF.r,Lsou, ii.N
ll
,. p ` u - 5 2001
ppmi 50URGL DRAt�CH
Re: Martin Marietta - Rocky Point Mine
Pender County, North Carolina
General Permit No. NCG020000
Certificate of Coverage No. NCG020166
Dear Mr. Bennett:
I represent David Sloan and Calvin Wells who are owners
of a tract of land adjacent to the above -referenced mine. They are
also the owners of land which is subject to future mining under the
mining lease held by Martin -Marietta. I also represent John Thomas
who is also owner of property adjoining property which is subject
to the mining lease. I will refer to these individuals
collectively as "adjacent owners."
Martin -Marietta is operating under an NPDES General
Permit and Certificate of Coverage with regard to their stormwater
and dewatering discharges from the mine. Part III, Section C.1. of
the General Permit contains several provisions for "dewatering
activities that have the potential to drain wetlands. .". The
dewatering has in fact drained considerable wetlands and continues
to drain additional wetlands. Thus, the potential to drain
wetlands in this case is proven. Several state and federal agency
representatives can confirm the wetland draining effects of the
dewatering.
It appears that the provisions of Part III.C.1. have not
been applied to the mine. Please take immediate steps to require
Martin -Marietta to comply with these provisions of the General
Permit.
For your information, Martin -Marietta has applied for a
renewal of a mining permit issued by the Division of Land
Resources. I believe that the Division of Water Quality has been
asked to comment on the pending application. It may be appropriate
to coordinate the enforcement of the NPDES permit with the comments

Mr. Bradley Bennett
June 1, 2001
Page 2
being prepared for the mining permit application. Please advise me
of how the Division intends to proceed with the implementation of
the requirements of the NPDES permit. Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. Ed Beck
Mr. Danny Smith
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis
Mr. Charles Gardner
Mr. Dan Sams
Mr. Calvin Wells
Dr. David Sloan
Mr. John Thomas
Mr. Rob Moul
Mr. Jim Cornette
WAR\environ\RO1-104-CO3

WESSEii- & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT ILAW
107-5 NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OFFICE Sox 1049
WILISUNOTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402
SortN C. WE98E1.1_ III
WnxaAm A. RANEY, 1R.
June 8, 2001
Mr. Charles Gardner
Division of Land Resources
612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Re: Martin -Marietta - Rocky Point Mine
Mining Permit Renewal Application
Dear Mr. Gardner:
u d U N 1 2 2001
DEHR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE BRANCH
TELEYIIONE 910-762-7475
FAx [phone]
E-MA EswANDR1013EI.T_ROVTII.NET
As you know I represent Calvin Wells, David Sloan and John
Thomas who are owners of property adjoining the Martin -Marietta mining
lease property in Rocky Point.
The mining permit for the above -referenced mine expired on May
16, 2001. The adjoining owners understand that Martin -Marietta has a
significant investment in the on -going operation and do not ask that the
mining operation cease immediately. However, in view of the evidence
that the mine is creating serious off -site damage, they ask that the mine
not be allowed to expand beyond the area already prepared for mining
until the Division makes a decision with regard to the renewal
application. If Martin -Marietta runs out of area to mine within the
perimeter of the existing active mining operation, they could always use
their equipment and manpower to begin reclaiming the areas already mined.
If the processing of the renewal application becomes a lengthy process
they feel it is appropriate in the near future to stop the currently
unpermitted mining operation.
Please provide me with a copy of any correspondence to Martin --
Marietta regarding the continuation of their mining activity during the
time that they are operating without a permit.
WAR:dc
cc: Mr. Calvin Wells
Mr. David Sloan
Mr. John Thomas
Mr. Rob Moul
Mr. Jim Cornette
Mr. Bradley Bennett
Mr. Dan Sams
WAR\envirn\R01-104-005
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.

JOIIN C. WESSELL. III
WILLIAM A. RA-NEY. JR.
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107-B NORTH .SECOND STREET
POST OnricE BOX 1049
WILMINGTON, NORTI3 CAROLINA 28402
April 29, 2002
TELErnoNE 910.762.7475
PAX 410.762-7557
E-MAIL:WANDRl®DEI.I 9OUTI I.NET
Mr. Charles Gardner
Division of Land Resources D
1.612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
�� AY - 1 2002
Re: Rocky Point Quarry
Mining Permit 69-06
Martin -Marietta Aggregates GILWE BRANPOALICH
F6;MT 5Ci R(E BRANCl� _
Dear Mr. Gardner:
David Sloan, Calvin Wells and John Thomas are still concerned
about the length of time it is taking for action by the Department on
Martin -Marietta's application for renewal of its mining permit for its
Rocky Point quarry.
It has been almost a year since Martin -Marietta applied for a
renewal of its permit. The Department has noted deficiencies in the
application and in the operation of the mine, yet Martin -Marietta
continues to operate without a permit and without a serious attempt to
correct the off -site problems being caused by its mining operations.
It is our belief that the technology exists for Martin -Marietta
to restore and maintain the wetlands areas that have been and are being
adversely affected by the mining activities. The fact that the
implementation of a wetlands restoration and preservation program will
require Martin -Marietta to expend additional funds is of no legal
consequence. If Martin -Marietta believes it is too expensive to protect
the wetlands, perhaps it should find another area where it can mine more
profitably.
Dr. Sloan and Mr. Wells are also quite concerned about what
appears to be a blatant disregard by Martin -Marietta of its legal
obligation to reclaim areas where mining has been completed for many
years. G.S. 74-53 states:
"The reclamation plan shall provide that
reclamation activities, particularly those
relating to control of erosion, shall to the
extent feasible be conducted simultaneously
with mining operations and in any event be
initiated at the earliest practicable time
after completion or termination of mining on
any segment of the permit area. The plan
shall provide that reclamation activities
shall be completed within two years after
completion or termination of mining on each
segment of the area for which a permit is

requested unless a longer period is
specifically permitted by the Department."
The reclamation plan submitted by Martin -Marietta recites the two year
provision in the statute yet many areas have been completed for more than
two years without reclamation.
Enclosed are photographs of areas where mining has been
completed for many years. It is apparent that nothing has been done to
reclaim these areas in accordance with the terms of the Mining Act or the
permit issued to Martin -Marietta. Please review the "Annual Reclamation
Reports" submitted by Martin -Marietta in accordance with condition ##13 of
its mining permit to determine if it is complying with reclamation
requirements.
Dr. Sloan and fir. Wells understood that the land they were
purchasing was subject to a mining lease. They also knew that
reclamation is required once mining is completed. They had no
expectation that the area would be returned to its original grade or that
a large lake would be created, but they certainly expected a reclamation
that meets the requirements of the Mining Act and the permit issued to
Martin -Marietta. To date it is clear that Martin -Marietta is not
reclaiming the land in accordance with the time frame or the standards
set forth in the Mining Act and its permit. In fact, it is not apparent
to Mr. Wells that any reclamation has been done at the mine on those
areas where mining has been completed for many years.
I would appreciate being informed of any submittal of -documents
by Martin -Marietta in response to the February 6, 2002 letter from Judith
Wehner to Horace Willson. If such notice is not feasible, I will contact
the Department periodically to check on the submission of data.
It appears that Martin -Marietta is abusing the 180 day grace
period allowed by the Department to submit additional information
concerning the renewal application. I would hope that the Department
would be firm in its latest deadline and would require Martin -Marietta to
cease operations, except reclamation, until it satisfies all conditions
for a permit renewal.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.
WAR:dc
Enclosures
CC: Dan Sams
Bradley Bennett
Rick Shiver
Mickey Sugg
WAR\environ\RO1-104-C15

~ .T.
--'---------- --
�
`

tiw
Ik
m.
�• �
f ,: i I
.s' i'
�
{
i
-'� �
:i
_
��
I

martin-marictta
Subject: martin-marietta
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 1 t :24:10 -0500
From: danny smith <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
ed.beck@ncmail. net, joanne.steenhuis@nctrtai[.net, [e-mail],
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Hey everyone:
Rick Shiver has asked me to set up a meeting to discuss Martin Marietta Materials. Rocky Point Mine.
The issues are numerous..... They include the Stormwater Permit (mine dewatering), Operations and
Monitoring Plan (a stormwater permit condition related to the potential of the mine to drain wetlands), sink
hole formations, wetlands and stream standards, wetland draining, and a 3rd party complainant. (Note: an
attorney, MR. W. A. Raney. represents the adjacent land owners/complainants. Mr. Raney has submitted a letter requesting that
DLR not issue that Mining Permit and that Martin -Marietta cease discharges under the NPDES permit until the conditions of the
permit are met.)
Attached is a Draft letter in an effort to help address both the compliant and the mine expansion issues.
Anyway, Rick's concerns are that this draft letter may have far reaching implications and thereby merits a
meeting. Also, time is problematic too (several reasons). Accordingly, Rick Shiver requests that a
meeting be scheduled during the next two weeks to discuss these issues and to make sure this is an
appropriate/adequate approach.
Tuesday January 29 and Friday Feb. Ist are bad for me... Rick indicated that Feb. 6th is the date of the
enforcement conference and that we could perhaps meet on that date (but, a sooner meeting date would be
preferred). Anyway, please advise a date and time.
Thanks
Danny
Name: minni-monitoring.doc
tnlnm-monitor_ing.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/tnsword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
I of 1 2/4/02141 1'M

Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Robert Winchester -
Martin -Marietta Aggregates-Rocky'Point Quarry
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013
Subject: Martin Marietta Materials
Rocky Point Quarry
NCG020166
Monitoring information and Wetlands Standards
Pender County
Dear Mr.
During a meeting on August 24, 2001, DWQ and Martin Marietta Materials
discussed concerns and issues related to mine dewatering, surface waters, and wetlands
located near/adjacent to the Rocky Point Quarry. During the meeting you provided a
dewatering management approach that may help stem concerns with respect to wetlands
and surface waters on portions of the Rocky Point Quarry tract. As a result of� this
meeting, a site visit was scheduled for December 3, 2001 in order for DWQ staff to
properly consider the scope and the potential effectiveness of the proposed dewatering
modifications with respect to wetlands/waters on this site.
In addition, it was also noted in the above -mentioned meeting that DWQ staff was
reviewing Martin Marietta's Stormwater Permit and that an additional information
request would be forthcoming. Specifically, Rocky Point Quarry was issued a
stormwater permit on December 17, 1999. In Section C: Effluent Monitoring and
Limitations Requirements For Mine Dewatering and Process Wastewater: Item 1, mine
dewatering activities that have the potential to drain wetlands must comply with the
following requirements:
• Operations and Monitoring Plan approved by the Division.
• Maximum of three days pumping followed by seven days of not pumping.
• Install monitoring wells along a transect or in several directions of the
Pumping, and supply data to the Division for review in order to demonstrate
the effect of pumping. Adverse impacts as a result of pumping requires
alterations of the pumping to reduce impact.
• The discharge location for water shall be into adjacent, up slope wetlands as
much as possible in order to maintain their hydrology and must be shown on
the operation and monitoring plan.
• Alternative site specific pumping and monitoring regimes trust be approved
by the Division on a case by case basis.

The DWQ site visit, a file review, and Martin Marietta's monitoring records
confirmed that the above mentioned monitoring and limitations requirements are required
to be addressed by Martin Marietta. Further, observations during the June 8, 2001, and
December 3, 2001, site visits by DWQ support concerns that wetland draining and
impacts to waters from mining/ mine dewatering have occurred. Also, as the mine
expands and pumping continues, it is a concern that impacts associated with the mine
footprint and the cone of depression from dewatering efforts may effect additional
wetlands and streams. Accordingly, please respond to the following bulleted items
within 60 days.
• It is requested that Martin Marietta develop an alternative site specific pumping and
monitoring regimes to be approved by the Division. This office also requests
monitoring information be designed in a manner to depict the cone of depression
associated with the mining efforts and the proposed mine expansion at the Rocky
Point site. Also, monitoring of any modifications to current dewatering practices
should also be included in this effort.
• During the site visit on December 3, 2001, hydraulic impacts to wetland were noted.
It was proposed by Martin Marietta to excavate a new outfall channel located along
the mine expansion boundary line and divert a portion of the mine dewater effluent
into this channel in an effort to restore the hydrology to an adjacent tract. However,
the site visit revealed that impacts to wetlands and waters appeared to be more
extensive than expected, and several outfalls, including one along the old
discharge/dewatering outfall, are merited.
Further, subsequent to this site visit, it is requested that Martin Marietta specifically
discuss/consider the use of spray irrigation as an alternative method of hydrologic
restoration. The respective modifications, developed from the above mentioned
approaches, should be detailed in your site specific pumping and monitoring plan for
approval by the Division.
• Please explain how the proposed mine expansion indicated in the Mine Map from
Martin Marietta Materials Aggregates dated 01/03/97 will not impact wetlands or
other surface waters. Specifically provide a monitoring plan and implementation time
schedule that will provide DWQ staff and Martin Marietta staff the information
necessary to consider current versus anticipated cone of depression associated with
the mine pit and respective mine pit expansion. The goal of this approach is to ensure
the maintenance of existing uses of surface waters and wetlands, including the
unnamed tributary to Strawberry Branch, stream side wetlands, and other
waters/wetlands within the cone of depression. Please identify these areas and detail
how you propose to ensure their appropriate protection.
Please note, that a site specific monitoring and pumping plan for the mine expansion,
as well as a plan to restore the hydrology to the wetlands, and an approval of this plan by
the DWQ is required. Please provide this plan within 60 days of the receipt of' this

correspondence. Also, it is the belief of this office that Martin Marietta has taken the
issues/concerns expressed during the June 8, 2001 and December 3, 2001 site visit
seriously as illustrated by your initial efforts to help come up with solutions. With
respect to that, as information is developed we would like to continue to encourage this
approach and welcome any ideas or off site approaches that may help to resolve these
issues.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. if you have any questions or wish to
discuss this matter further please do not hesitate to call Ed Beck or myself at (910) 395-
3900.
Sincerely,
Rick Shiver
Wilmington Regional Office
Cc: WiRO — File Copy
WiRO - DLR
Wetland 401 Unit — Danny Smith
Stormwater Unit - Bradley Bennett
Corps of Engineers
Division of Land Resources — Judy Wehner
Horace Wilson, Director Environmental Services
Martin -Marietta Aggregates -Rocky Point Quarry
P.O. Box 30013, Raleigh, NC 27622-0013

3 Cam( {3 I-�-
i� S cl sy
uv-j.- vwv\.�
3) P61 r-� , . 0� vv"(Aj
..I �•,� r } � 5 g wr S. L�

d
I/
WESSELL & R axEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107-B NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OF710E BOX 1049
WIr.m NGTON, NORTH CAROEINA 28402
-�
JOHN C. WESSELL. III
r
I
E
2-74
WrLL Am A. RANEY. JR.
� 910.762.7
E-
$7 -_
W R E
= CQ
January 30, 2002
.'.o
IM
CID LU
x
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
u-
�u WoC>
Division of Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Re: Martin -Marietta, Rocky Point Mine
Dear Mr. Gardner:
I have had an opportunity to review the letter of January 18,
2002 from Horace Willson, Director of Environmental Science for Martin -
Marietta, to you with regard to certain issues involving the Rocky Point
mine in Pender County. My review and comment is on behalf of Calvin
Wells and David Sloan who are owners of property adjacent to the mine and
who are also owners of the surface rights of much of the mine site. I
also submit these comments on behalf of John Thomas who owns property
adjacent to a proposed expansion of the current mining area.
Martin -Marietta's permit expired on May 17, 2001. Martin -
Marietta has continued to operate for 258 days without a permit. On June
22, 2001 the Division of Land Resources asked Martin -Marietta to provide
additional information on wetland and sinkhole impacts and to provide a
more detailed reclamation plan. On the issue of wetlands and sinkholes
they were given 60 days to submit information. They were given 180 days
to provide more detail on the reclamation plan. Pending the responses
they were allowed to continue mining.
nr '`_'_: st '31 � 2001, Marto n-Marietta aul} i tted A purported plan
to address the issues related to wetlands and sinkholes. Their response
was very brief and totally inadequate to address the concerns raised. I
submitted comments on their purported "recharge plan" by letter dated
December 17, 2001.
On January 18, 2002, Martin -Marietta submitted its response to
the request for more detail on its reclamation plan. This response was
246 days after the permit expired and 210 days after the June 22, 2001
letter from the Division of Land Resources requesting the information.
Presumably the response was well beyond the 180 day deadline which ran
from Martin -Marietta's receipt of the June 22, 2001 letter from DLR.

Mr. Charles Gardner
January 30, 2002
Page 2
The response to the requested information was that Martin -
Marietta did not understand the request. It is unbelievable that it took
Martin -Marietta approximately 210 days to determine that they needed
clarification of what was being requested. This is especially true in
view of the June 22, 2001 DLR letter which urged Martin -Marietta to
submit the information before the deadline to enable DLR to process the
application in a timely manner. The DLR letter also indicated that a
decision would be made after the 180 day period unless the deadline had
been extended for good cause. The Martin -Marietta letter also indicates
that there were other reasons for its lack of response. The reasons
cited deal with regulatory issues involving wetlands that exist within a
mine expansion area and have absolutely nothing to do with submitting an
adequate reclamation plan for the entire mine site as required by law.
Mr. Willson's letter implies that Dr. Sloan and Mr. Wells are
seeking reclamation of the mine to an unreasonable standard. Willson
references the lease of the mineral rights by Martin -Marietta from
Georgia-Pacific and implies that Dr. Sloan and Mr. Wells who purchased
the land subject to the lease are seeking actions not required in the
lease. To the extent there are rights and obligations between Dr. Sloan
and Mr. wells as property owners and Martin -Marietta as lessee, these are
a matter between the parties and are not relevant to the current issues
involving a reclamation plan meeting statutory standards. The
reclamation plan is required by the Mining Act and the State should
enforce the provisions of the Act.
Mr. Willson compares the proposed reclamation of the mine to
the reclamation done at Martin -Marietta's New Bern quarry. Based on the
photographs shown to Mr. Wells and Dr. Sloan of the New Bern quarry
reclamation, it would appear that such a plan might meet the requirements
of the Mining Act. However, the so-called reclamation plan for the Rocky
Point quarry appears to them to be substantially different from what they
have been shown concerning the New Bern quarry. If Martin -Marietta is to
reclaim the Rocky Point quarry the same way as the New Bern quarry as Mr.
Willson implies, then Martin -Marietta should provide a detailed plan as
requested by DLR. The plan should show the reclamation of the area that
is within the permitted mining area even if that area is not currently
being mined. This is consistent with the Mining Act's requirement that
a plan be submitted and approved prior to any mining activity.
It appears that Martin -Marietta is attempting to continue its
mining operations as long as possible with no intention of making a
serious and adequate response to the State's request for necessary

Mr. Charles Gardner
January 30, 2002
Page 3
information. Dr. Sloan and Messrs. Wells and Thomas respectfully request
that Martin -Marietta be ordered to cease mining without a permit and to
implement a reclamation plan meeting the requirements of the Mining Act.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
Ij, cc-
W. A. Raney, Jr.
WAR :dc
WAR\ENVIRON\RO1-104-C13
cc: Mr. Bradley Bennett
Mr. Mickey Sugg
Mr. Dan Sams
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis
Mr. Tracy Davis
Ms. Judith Wehner
Mr. Mike Wylie
Mr. Danny Smith
Mr. Calvin Wells
Mr. David Sloan
Mr. John Thomas
Mr. Rob Moul
Mr. Jim Cornette

WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ,
107-B NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WILMINOTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402
i
JOFIN C. WESSELL, III TELEpnoNE 910-762-7475
WILLIAM A. RANEY. JR. FAx [phone]
E-M-AIL:WANDRI®DELLSOUTII. NET
December 17, 2001
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Mr. Bradley Bennett
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Mr. Mickey Sugg
Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Re: Martin -Marietta, Rocky Point Mine
Dear Messrs. Gardner, Bennett & Sugg:
I represent Calvin Wells, David Sloan and John Thomas. They
are owners of land adjacent to or in close proximity to the Martin -
Marietta mine in Rocky Point, North Carolina. Messrs. Sloan and Wells
are also owners of the fee title on some of the lands being mined under
a mining lease held by Martin -Marietta.
My clients have asked me to advise you of their position on
various regulatory issues concerning the mine.
North Carolina Mining Permit N.C.G.S. Chapter 74, Article 7_
Martin -Marietta's current mining permit expired on May 17,
2001. I understand that on May 15, 2001 Martin -Marietta
applied for a renewal of the permit. I submitted comments on
behalf of my clients by letter dated June 6, 2001 (Exhibit,A).
By letter dated June 22, 2001 Judith Wehner of the Division of
Land Resources (DLR) requested information from Martin -Marietta
to respond to concerns of DLR (Exhibit B). Martin -Marietta was
given sixty days to provide a plan to address the effects of
the mining on wetlands and waterways and to address the problem
of sinkhole development. A two page "Recharge Plan" was
submitted by Martin -Marietta dated August 31, 2001 (Exhibit'C).

Mr. Charles Gardner
Mr. Bradley Bennett
Mr. Mickey Sugg
December 17, 2001
Page Two
This Plan has not been implemented and is wholly inadequate to
address the effects of the mine on wetlands, waterways and
sinkhole development (see comments of Jim Cornette, Exhibit D).
The Wehner letter also requested that more detail be provided
on the Reclamation Plan for the mine within one hundred eighty
days. The letter asked that the information be submitted
promptly so as to provide an opportunity for meaningful review
since a decision on the renewal of the expired permit would be
made one hundred eighty days from the date of the letter: To
my knowledge the requested information has not been provided.
Even if such information is provided prior to the hundred and
eighty day deadline there is insufficient time to adequately
assess the information before making a decision on permit
renewal. Because the applicant has not provided the requested
information in a timely manner the permit renewal should be
denied at least until the applicant adequately addresses the
issues.
NPDES Permit. The existing mining operation is conducted under
NPDES General Permit NCG02000, Certificate of Coverage! No.
NCG020166 issued on December 17, 1999. 1 sent a letter to
Bradley Bennett dated January 1, 2001 in which I raised several
issues regarding compliance by Martin -Marietta with the NPDES
Permit (Exhibit E). There has been no apparent change in' the
operations at the mine to comply with the provisions of the
Permit. I have never received any response indicating .that
Martin -Marietta has come into compliance with the relevant
provisions.
Wetlands. A letter from Mickey Sugg of the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office, US Army Corps of Engineers, to Horace
Willson of Martin -Marietta dated November 13, 2001 indicates
that Martin -Marietta's planned expansion will impact wetlands
and that no further expansion of the mine should be undertaken
without a delineation of wetlands and a permit from the
Department of the Army (Exhibit F).
On behalf of my clients I respectfully request that, the
Division of Land Resources deny Martin -Marietta's renewal application
based on the failure of Martin -Marietta to adequately address the issues
raised by DLR concerning compliance with applicable standards. 1 also
request that the North Carolina Division of Water Quality !take
appropriate action to enforce the provisions of Martin -Marietta's NPDES

Mr. Charles Gardner
Mr. Bradley Bennett
Mr. Mickey Sugg
December 17, 2001
Page Three
Permit, including a requirement that Martin -Marietta cease discharges
until the requirements of the Permit are met.
The applicable state and federal agencies have already
exhibited great restraint and have given Martin -Marietta more 1than
adequate time to respond to the legitimate concerns raised by the
agencies. Apparently Martin -Marietta does not take these concerns
seriously as evidenced by its wholly inadequate response to a request for
a "Recharge Plan". Martin -Marietta continues to operate in defiance of
the appropriate standards and will obviously continue to do so until'they
are forced to comply. Their state mining permit expired on May 17, 2001.
More than one hundred eighty days have elapsed since they applied for a
renewal of their permit. The time has come to require compliance.
Messrs. Wells and Sloan are aware that Martin -Marietta has a
lease to mine portions of the Wells/Sloan property. However, the lease
does not enable Martin -Marietta to mine these areas without regard to
applicable governmental standards. '
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.
WAR:dc
Enclosures
WAR\ENVIRON\RO1-104-C11
CC: Mr. Dan Sams
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis--
Mr. Tracy Davis
Ms. Judith Wehner
Mr. Mike Wylie
Mr. Danny Smith
Mr. Calvin Wells
Mr. David Sloan
Mr. John Thomas
Mr. Rob Moul
Mr. Jim Cornette

EXHIBIT A
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107-B NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1049
WILIAUNOTON. NORTH CAROI.INA 28402 m
JOHN C. WESSELI_ III TELEPHONE:[phone],
Wn r r&af A- RAIWEY. JR. '"FAX [phone]�
June 6, 2001 FrMAIL�Y�►ZIDRI�I3ELi8bIITY
Mr. Charles Gardner r
n�
Division of Land Resources'
612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Re: Martin -Marietta - Rocky Point Mine
Mining Permit Renewal Application
Dear Mr. Gardner:
I represent Calvin Wells and David Sloan who are owners of
property adjacent to the Martin -Marietta Rocky Point mine in'Pender
County. They are also the owners of land which is subject to the mining
lease and which is being mined by Martin -Marietta. I also represent John
Thomas who is the owner of property that is adjacent to property that is
proposed to be mined in the near future. I will refer to these
individuals collectively as "adjacent owners"
I understand that the mining permit for Martin -Marietta expired
on May 16, 2001 and that Martin -Marietta has requested a renewal.of the
permit by application received by the Division of Land Resources .on May
15, 2001.
The adjacent owners are quite concerned about the present and
future effects of the mining operation on their property. The concerns
arise out of problems that have already become apparent as the mining
operations move closer to their properties. Some of the problems are as
follows:
• Sinkholes have begun to appear on private properties
adjacent to the mine site as the mining operations move
closer.
• The Wells/Sloan drinking water well has been experiencing
increasing and frequent problems associated with the
quarry's dewatering activities.
• Wetland areas on the adjacent owners' properties as well
as on the unmined portion of the Martin -Marietta mining
lease property have been drying up due to dewatering
activities at the mine.
These problems have been documented in reports from Land
Management Group and Applied Resource Management which have been provided
to you previously.
The cause of all of these problems is clearly the mining
activity of Martin -Marietta. The problems have increased dramatically as

Mr. Charles Gardner
June 6, 2001
Page 2
the mining operations move closer to the adjacent properties. The loss
of wetlands both on and off the mined property is very apparent from
evidence at the site as well as from aerial photography and land owner
observations. Ponds, streams and swamps that contained standing or
flowing water only a year or so ago are now dry even after periods of
significant rain.
Since the last renewal permit for this mine was granted in
1991, the mining activities utilized by Martin -Marietta at this site have
been subjected to new legal requirements under the state/federal water
quality permitting programs. The North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission has imp-_emented•a program of wetland protection by enactment
of administrative rules in 1996 (15A NCAC 2B.0231). In addition, the
State has implemented a permit program for storm water discharg6s that
was not in effect in 1991. The NPDES General Permit Number NCG020'000 and
Certificate of Coverage NCG020166 issued by the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality imposes new legal requirements on the mine and are
incorporated by reference into the Mining Act under G.S. 74-51(c)(3).
The application for renewal should be denied unless Martin --
Marietta can show that they have an effective means of avoiding existing
wetlands, avoiding further dewatering of wetlands or former wetlands,
restoring former wetlands that have been dewatered by their activities,
preventing the formation of sinkholes on property that is not subject to
their mining permit and preventing the failure of nearby drinking water
wells.
Should the applicant propose any measures to attempt to address
these impacts, the adjoining owners and their consultants would
appreciate the opportunity to comment on such proposals.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Please
notify me of any action taken on the renewal application.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. Calvin Wells
Mr. David Sloan
Mr. John Thomas
Mr. Rob Moul
Mr. Jim Cornette
WAR\envirn\R01-104-004

EXHIBIT B
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
June 22, 2001
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Mitch Scott, P.E.
Martin Marietta Aggregates
P.G. Box 30u13
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0013
RE: Rocky Point Quarry
Pender County
Cape fear Basin
Dear Mr. Scott;
NCDENR
Division of Land Resources
We have reviewed the renewal request you submitted for the above referenced mine site.
However, the following information is needed to continue processing your application:
A plan must be submitted that limits the affect the current mining operation has on
adjoining wetlandslwaterways and prevents the creation of sinkholes on
surrounding areas. The plan should include mitigation of the affected
wetlandstwaterways and past and future sinkhole development. This plan must be
submitted within 60 days of the receipt of this letter or the Department will modify
your mining permit.
2. More detaii is needed on the reclamation plan. Modeling should be based on the
existing topography which can be obtained from sources such as aerial
photography.
Please be advised that our review cannot be completed until all of the items listed labove
have been fully addressed.
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward two (2) copies of
the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Land Quality Section [phone] Fax [phone] Geological Survey Section [phone] Fax [phone]
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Division of Land Resources [phone] Fax: [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNM \ AFFiR�4AT]VE ALTiON EI[PLOYER - SO % RECYCLED / 10% POST COtiSUMER PAPER

Certified Mail
Mr. Scott
Page Two
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 5B.0013. you are hereby advised that you have 180 days from
the date of your receipt of this letter to submit the requested information (with the exception of
the information requested in No. 1, which has a 60 day deadline). If you are unable to meet this
deadline and wish to request additional time, you must submit information, in writing, to the
Director clearly indicating why the deadline can not be met and request that an extension of time
be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made to grant or deny the
mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's files at the end of, the 180
day period.
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as possible.
Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your application sooner.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
()aj` 4U4,z.,
Judith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dan Sams, P. E.
Mr. W. A. Raney, Jr., Esq. - P.O. Box 1.049, Wilmington, NC 28402

11/30/2001 17:37 9197158801 GARDNER rIpk= GZ
EXHIBIT C
Martin Marietta Materials
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013
Telephone: [phone]
August 31, 2001
Ms. Judith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
NCDENR
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Subject: Rocky Point Quarry
Permit No. 69-06
Fender County
Dear Ms. Wehner:
6
` L'
���'�� AUG 3 � 26d1
flBNR
�typ al ja,LITY SEGT��N
As suggested in your letter dated June 22, 2001. we are providing the Land Quality Section with our
proposed plan to address Item No. 1. The Reclamation Plan noted in Item No. 2 of your letter is currently
under study. This plan will be submitted within the required time frame.
Recharge Plan:
1. INCREASING WATER LEVEL IN NORTHWEST PIT AREA:
Please refer to the attached Mine Map entitled "Recharge Plan." As noted on the map, the northwest
area of the mined out pit will be allowed to flood. Area "A", which totals approximately 138 acres'
has been reclaimed but not released. Area'S", which totals approximately 120 acres will need to be
sloped and graded. During this period, the main haulroad will be built up, forming a dike between
Areas "A" and "B" and the rcrainder of the active pit. The two areas behind the dike will be allowed
to flood. This condition should allow the property located to the east to become recharged.
The height of the dike and the level of flooding is currently under study by Skelly and Loy. It is
expected that the final water level will approximate the current water level in Strawberry Branch.
2. CONSTRUCT A RECHARGE DITCH ALONG PROPERTY LINE:
The pit sump, which handles Outfall 002, will be relocated south of the proposed dike. A recharge
ditch along the property boundary between Martin Marietta, the Williams Echols Property and the
Wells/SIoan Property will be constructed. Water from Outfall 002 will be allowed to flow down this
ditch, forming a recharge condition onto adjacent properties. The engineering of this ditch is
currently under study. The size and shape of such a ditch will depend on soil types noted in the area.
Soils analysis will be conducted to determine the approximate ditch configuration.
NOV-30-2001 16:50 9197158801 98% P•02

11/30/2001 17:37 9197158801 GARDNER PAGE 83
Ms. Judith A. Wchncr
August 31, 2001
Page 2
Water from this recharge ditch will intersect with an existing drainage ditch "A" that runs north to
Strawberry Branch. A certain percentage of the Outfall 002 pit water will continue to flow back to
the old Outfall 0021odation noted as drainage ditch "B". This arrangement will keep a constant flow
in this portion of Strawberry Branch.
With this arrangement, the two adjacent properties will be surrounded by flowing water, which
should recharge the area. This recharge should restore arty wetland areas and prevent the creation of
sinkholes.
3. PAST AND FUTURE STNY-110LE DEVELOPMENT:
To our knowledge, we have not had any sinkhole development other than during the construction o£I-
40 back in the summer of 1983 and the fall of 2000. In November of 200, sinkholes developed on the
Wells/Sloan Property, and several were also noted along the Rebecca Kennedy Road, across the berm
from an area we had minded out about 15 years earlier. The ones along the road were filled in by the
DOT in January 2001. We have offered to fill in the sinkholes on the WeIWSloan Property. They
responded on March 1, 2001 that they were not ready to have the sinkholes filled. As far as we know,
they are still open.
This proposed Recharge Plan should help prevent the development of future sinkholes. Surveys will
be conducted to monitor the possible occurrence of future sinkholes.
We recently had a meeting with the Division of Water Quality's (DWQ) 401 Wetlands Section and
reviewed the above program covering water levels and recharge areas. DWQ had a positive reaction to
our plan. They did, however, have concerns with wetland areas on the adjacent Georgia Pacific Property
located to the south. We will have a meeting at the site with DWQ in the near future regarding this issue.
In addition, this operation has an expected life of between 8 to 10 years. At that time, pumping will
cease. the water levels will rise, and the area will be reclaimed. As a part of the reclamation, we intend to
convert the area into a sizeable natural habitat. The area will include exposed ridges, meandering water
areas and wetlands. This information will be available once the revised Reclamation Plan has been
completed.
We trust that the plan described above meets with your approval. Please give me a call at 919/783-4631
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,%
Horace S. Willson
Director, Environmental Services
cc: Mike Jones
Paxton Badharn
Doug Pope
Yvonne Bailey
Karen Albright
HSW/ml
NOu-30-2001 16:50 9197159901 99i P.03

11/30/2081 17:37 9197158801
GARDNER PAut U4
I
AUS 31 ZX, r
i
NOU-30-2001 16:51
9197158801 98i
P.04

EXHIBIT D
pplied Keoource Management, FC.
December 14, 2001
Mr. Calvin Wells and
Dr. David Sloan
1905 Ashbrook Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Re.: Recharge Plan and Its Effects on the
Collapse Structures on the
Wells/Sloan Property
Ponder County, North Carolina
Gentlemen,
As requested, I hsve.reviewed a correspondence and sketch prepared by Martin Marietta.
This correspondence presented a proposed recharge plan to eliminate the occurrence of
sinkholes and collapse structures on your property by utilizing "recharge ditches." In
response to the correspondence, I have the following questions and concerns:
1. How will the ditches introduce water into the underlying limestone?
2. is the amount of water to be introduced excessive of the water removed from the
quarry operations?
3. What is the permeability of the soils under and surrounding the recharge ditches?
4. How will recharge into the ditches be directed away from the quarry operations?
In other words, how will the quarry dewatering operations keep from simply short
circuit recovering the same waters discharged into the ditches?
5. What is the radius of influence for the limestone dewatering operation in the
limestone?
6. What is the radius of influence for the limestone dewatering operation in the
overlying surficial aquifer?
W. Dox 882
Hampstead. NC 28443
910.2702919
FAX [phone]
DEC-14-2001 :9:15 gg/ p O1

December 14. 2001
It has been my experience that discharges to ditches or creeks will serve as a .minor
recharge to the soils immediately surrounding the ditch or creek beds. Gravity and vertical
flow gradients will serve to draw the minor recharge into the main withdrawal aquifer, in
essence complicating and potentially exacerbating the conditions with which the recharge
was meant to help.
In summary, I do not believe that the proposed recharge ditches will recharge'the areas
currently effected by sinkholes, subsidence, and other collapse structures. The minor re-
introduction of water into the subsurface will serve to recharge the areas of the surficial
aquifer immediately surrounding the ditches, but will not serve to reintroduce water into the
damaged limestone layer beneath the area. Without the reintroduction, the limestone will
continue to solution and collapse. The only way to stabilize the area would be with a
physical barrier surrounding the quarry, with a balance of groundwater maintained in the
surrounding properties outside the barrier.
If you have questions, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
James L. Comette, P.G.
Project Manager
encs.
\\```\NON%I4tI I I I IIIHI111/j���
..§ H CAR
�'���ceivsFo
S = /
0l,
�7 �TL OG
!/lllllpgllHll11111►���
DEC-14-2001 19:17 99% P.02

EXHIBIT E
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107-B NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OFVICE BOX 1049
WIT NOTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402
JOHN C. WESSELi- III
WUJ-LA.M A. RwNry, SR.
June 1, 2001
Mr. Bradley Bennett
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
T=C EFHONE 910-762-7475
FAX [phone]
F 2JArUWANDRI®T'rJJAOUTf3.NET
Re: Martin Marietta - Rocky Point Mine
Pender County, North Carolina
General Permit No. NCG020000
Certificate of Coverage No. NCG020166
Dear Mr. Bennett:
I represent David Sloan and Calvin Wells who are owners
of a tract of land adjacent to the above -referenced mine. They are
also the owners of land which is subject to future mining under the
mining lease held by Martin -Marietta. I also represent John Thomas
who is also owner of property adjoining property which is subject
to the mining lease. I will refer to these individuals
collectively as "adjacent owners."
Martin -Marietta is operating under an NPDES General
Permit and Certificate of Coverage with regard to their stormwater
and dewatering discharges from the mine. Part III, Section C.1. of
the General Permit contains several provisions for "dewatering
activities that have the potential to drain wetlands. . .". The
dewatering has in fact drained considerable wetlands and continues
to drain additional wetlands. Thus, the potential to drain
wetlands in this case is proven. Several state and federal agency
representatives can confirm the wetland draining effects of the
dewatering.
It appears that the provisions of Part III.C.1. have not
been applied to the mine. Please take immediate steps to require
Martin -Marietta to comply with these provisions of the General
Permit.
For your information, Martin -Marietta has applied for a
renewal of a mining permit issued by the Division of Land
Resources. I believe that the Division of Water Quality has been
asked to comment on the pending application. It may be appropriate
to coordinate the enforcement of the NPDES permit with the comments

Mr. Bradley Bennett
June 1, 2001
Page 2
being prepared for the mining permit application. Please advise me
of how the Division intends to proceed with the implementation of
the requirements of the NPDES permit. Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
W. A. Raney, Jr.
WAR:dc
CC: Mr. Ed Beck
Mr. Danny Smith
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis
Mr. Charles Gardner
Mr. Dan Sams
Mr. Calvin Wells
•Dr. David Sloan
Mr. John Thomas
Mr. Rob Moul
Mr. Jim Cornette
WAR\environ\R91-104-CO3

Sent By: LAND MANAGEMENT;
910 452 0060
EXHIBIT F
Nov-16-01 1:54PM; Page 2/3
�IF,1.
1.
A, ''u;p,• i�
Ai
�nrcpn�-••.
Regulatory Division
Action ID: 200200036
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMtNGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Y.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTU CAROLINA 28402-1890
Martin Marietta Aggregates
C/o: Horace Willson, Manager
Environmental Services
Post Officc Box 30013
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0013
Dear Mr, Willson:
November l3, 2001
Please refcrcnec our September 12, 2001 onsite meeting regarding the presence of
Section 404 waters and wetlands under Department of the Army (DA) permitting authority
within Martin Marietta's Rocky Point Quarry. The quarry is located at the headwaters of
Strawberry Branch, on the southeast comer of interstate 40 and NC 210, in Rocky Point, Pender
County, North Carolina. Also present at the meeting was Mr. George Collins, Area Production
Manager; Mr. Doug Pope, Rocky Point Plant Manager; and Mr. Troy Beasley of our regulatory
staff.
As we discussed at the September meeting, the presence of waters and -wetlands within
the quarry is more than originally indicated during an April 12, 2001 inspection with your agent,
Mr. David Scihetta of Mitchell & Associates. My initial review of the approximate 200-acre
tract on the south side of Strawberry Branch did not take in consideration the affects of the
quarry's pumping of 8.0 million gallons of groundwater per 24-hour period. As explained, this
pumping activity, which is considered not permanent, has significantly affected the adjacent
waters and wetlands within the property by removing the hydrology parameter. It is our position
that hydrological pumping of the water table for mining purposes is not considered "normal
circumstances", as once the pumping operation is terminated normal water levels are expected to
be re-established. It is nuted that the logging road ditches and the small interior ditches have had
a drainage influence on the adjacent wetlands, but not to the extent or removing hydrology
within the enure tract.
During the September meeting, we drove to the north side of a tributary to Strawberry
branch where the mining operation was recently expanded. You were informed that this area,
adjacent to the mine, contains jurisdictional wetlands and would require DA authorization prior
to additional mining expansions. This was also conveyed to yuu regarding the expansion of thc'
mine operation to the east, just past the dirt access road, within an approximate 700-acre tract.
This area was previously inspected during a May 23 visit with the landowner's consultant. It is
NOU-16-2001 14:05 910 452 0060 96% P.02

Sent By: LAND MANAGEMENT; 910 452 0060 ; No11-16-01 1:55PM; Page 313
strongly recommended that all areas be (re)dclineated and verified by our office prior to
committing additional resources toward any expansion.
If Martin Marietta's plans are to expand the mining operation after the wetlands are
verified, the enclosed DA permit application must be filled out completely and submitted to our
office for processing.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact meat (910) 251-
4811, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office.
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Ms. Carol Miller
Land Quality Section
North. Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845
Mr. Mike Wylie
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wetlands Protection Section- Region IV
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30605
Mr. Rob Moul
Land Management Group, Iuc.
Post Office sox 2522
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Sincerely,
Mickey Sugg
Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Officc
Mr. Douglas Pope
Martin Marietta Rocky Point Quarry
Post Office Box 347
Rocky Point, North Carolina 28457
Mr. Danny Smith
Division of Watcr Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
NOU-16-2001 14:05 .910 452 0060 96%
P.03

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GENERAL PERMIT NO. NCG020000
TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER, MINE DEWATERING, AND PROCESS WASTEWATER
UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, this permit
is hereby issued to all owners Ior operators, hereafter permittees, which are covered by this permit
as evidenced by receipt of a Certificate . of Coverage by the Environmental Management
Commission to allow the discharge of stormwater, mine dewatering, and process wastewater to
the surface waters of North Carolina or to a separate storm sewer system conveying discharges to
surface waters in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein.
Coverage under this general permit is applicable to:
• Stormwater point source discharge outfalls associated with mining and quarrying of
nonmetallic minerals (except fuels), land disturbance, and vehicle maintenance.
• Mine dewatering discharge outfalls.
• Wastewater discharge outfalls from sand and/or gravel operations.
• Nondischarging closed loop recycle systems.
• Process recycle wastewater discharge outfalls.
The following activities and their associated discharges are specifically excluded from coverage
under this General Permit: borrow pits covered by the DOT statewide stormwater permit, peat
mining, coal mining, metal mining, oil and gas extraction operations, and combined
mining/asphalt operations (where the asphalt operation is not covered by a separate permit).
The General Permit shall become effective on December 1, 1999.
The General Permit shall expire at midnight on November 30, 2004.
Signed this day November 18, 1999.
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

Permit No. NCG020000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I INTRODUCTION
Section A: General Permit Coverage
Section B. Permitted Activities
Section C: Permit Renewal
PART 11 AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TREATMENT
FACILITY
PART III MONITORING, CONTROLS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PERMITTED
DISCHARGES
Section A: Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Section B: Analytical and Qualitative Monitoring Requirements for Discharges Composed
Entirely of Stormwater
Section C: Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements for Mine dewatering and Process
Wastewater
PART IV STANDARD CONDITIONS
Section A: Compliance and Liability
1. Compliance Schedule
2. Duty to Comply
3. Duty to Mitigate
4. Civil and Criminal Liability
5. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
6. Property Rights
7. Severability
8. Duty to Provide Information
9. Penalties for Tampering
10. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
Section B: General Conditions
1. Continuation of the Expired General Permit
2. Transfers
3. When an Individual Permit May be Required
0

Permit No. NCGO20000
4. When an individual Permit May be Requested
5. Signatory Requirements
6. General Permit Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or
Termination
7. Certificate of Coverage Actions
Section C: Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
3. Bypassing of Stormwater Control Facilities
Section D: Monitoring and Records
1.
Representative Sampling
2.
Recording Results
3.
Flow Measurements
4.
Test Procedures
5.
Non-Stormwater Discharges
6.
Representative Outfall
7.
Records Retention
8.
Inspection and Entry
Section E: Reporting Requirements
1.
Discharge Monitoring Reports
. 2.
Submitting Reports
3.
Availability of Reports
4.
Non-Stormwater Discharges
5.
Planned Changes
6.
Anticipated Noncompliance
7.
Bypass
8.
Twenty-four Hour Reporting
9.
Other Noncompliance
10.
Other Information
PART V LIMITATIONS REOPENER
PART VI ADMINISTERING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE
REQUIREMENTS
PART VII DEFINITIONS
1f

Pemdt No. NCG020000
PART I INTRODUCTION
SECTION A: GENERAL PERMIT COVERAGE
All persons desiring to have facilities covered by this General Permit must register with the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) by the filing of,a Notice of Intent (NOI) and applicable fees.
The NOI shall be submitted and a certificate of coverage issued prior to any discharge of
stormwater associated with industrial activity, mine dewatering or process wastewater that has a
point source discharge to the surface waters of the state.
This General Permit covers mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals (except fuels)
including non DOT borrow pits (i.e. borrow pits that would not be covered under the statewide
DOT stormwater permit) and active or inactive mines that discharge stormwater contaminated
with or that has come in contact with, any overburden, raw material, intermediate products,
finished products, byproducts or waste products located at the site of such operations and
stormwater runoff from vehicle maintenance areas. This General Permit also covers discharge of
wastewater from processing mined materials and mine dewatering from the groundwater and/or
stormwater that accumulates in the mine pit. This General Permit does not cover activities or
discharges covered by an individual NPDES permit until the individual permit has expired or has
been revoked. Any person conducting an activity covered by an individual permit but which
could be covered by this General Permit may request that the individual permit be revoked and
coverage under this General Permit be provided.
SECTION B: PERMITTED ACTIVITIES
Until this permit expires or is modified or revoked, the permittee is authorized to discharge
stormwater, mine dewatering and process wastewater to the surface waters of North Carolina or a
separate storm sewer system which has been adequately treated and managed in accordance with
the terms and conditions of this General Permit. All discharges shall be in accordance with the
conditions of this permit.
Any other point source discharge to surface waters of the state is prohibited unless it is an
allowable non-stormwater discharge or is covered by another permit, authorization or approval.
SECTION C: PERMIT RENEWAL
Dischargers covered by general permits need not submit new NOIs or renewal requests unless so
directed by the Division. If the Division chooses not to renew a general permit, all facilities
covered under that general permit shall be notified to submit applications for individual permits
or notified to take other appropriate actions at the discretion of the Director.
Part I Page 1 of 1

Permit No. NCG020000
PART II AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A
TREATMENT FACILITY
Mining operations which involve construction and operation of treatment facilities for mine
dewatering or process wastewater (such as saw water, wash water, etc.) are subject to
construction and operation requirements for these facilities as outlined in Section A and Section
B below.
SECTION A: REQUIREMENTS TO CONSTRUCT NEW OR EXPANDING TREATMENT
FACII IT1ES .
All new or expanding treatment facilities must receive an Authorization to Construct (A
to C) from DWQ.
2. Application for the A to C requires that plans and specifications be submitted to the
Division of Water Quality, Stormwater and General Permits Unit, 1617 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 for approval.
3. Upon approval of the plans and specifications by the Division, a set of approved plans
and specifications for the subject project will be returned to the permittee. These plans
must be retained by the permittee for the life of this project.
4. Upon receipt of an approved A to C, the approved treatment facilities shall be constructed
in accordance with the conditions of this permit, the approved plans and specifications,
and other supporting data. The treatment facilities shall be constructed to meet the
effluent limitations in Part III, Section C of this general permit.
5. Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of a permitted facility, a
certification of plans and specifications must be received from a professional engineer in
accordance with G.S. 89-25 certifying that the permitted facility has been installed in
accordance with this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting
materials. Mail the Certification of plans and specifications to the Division of Water
Quality, Stormwater and General Permits Unit, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1617.
6. The DWQ Regional Office shall be notified at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of
operation of the installed facilities so that an in place inspection can be made if the
Regional Office so desires. Such notification to the regional supervisor shall be made
during normal business hours from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday,
excluding State Holidays.
Existing, new and expanding treatment facilities shall be subject to the following operational
requirements.
Part 11 Page 1 of 2

Permit No. NCG020000
SECTION B: REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATION OF A TREATMENT FACILITY.
Operation and maintenance of treatment facilities must be in accordance with the
requirements in this General Permit. No documentation other than a signed Certificate of
Coverage is required to operate an existing treatment facility. New facilities must also
have an Authorization to Construct permit.
2. Diversion or bypass of untreated wastewater from a treatment facility is prohibited except
under provisions of this permit in Part IV, Section C.3.
3. In the event that a facility fails to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of
nuisance conditions, the permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including those
actions that may be required by this Division, such as the construction of additional or
replacement treatment or disposal facilities.
4. The issuance of this permit shall not relieve the permittee of the responsibility for
damages to surface waters of the State resulting from the operation of a treatment facility.
5. Any discharge from a treatment system to groundwater must protect the groundwater'
standards specified in 15A NCAC 2L, Groundwater Classification and Standards.
b. Any groundwater quality monitoring, as deemed reasonably necessary by the Division,
shall be provided.
7. No chemical flocculants shall be used in the treatment facility.without written
authorization from the Division.
All discharges of process wastewater will be monitored in accordance with Part III,
Section C of this permit.
Part II Page 2 of 2

Permit No. NCGO20000
PART III MONITORING, CONTROLS, AND LIMITATIONS FOR
PERMITTED DISCHARGES
SECTION A: STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) PLAN
1. The permittee shall implement BMPs to ensure that contaminants do not enter surface
waters visa stormwater that comes in contact with any unstabilized overburden, raw
materials, intermediate',products, finished products, byproducts or waste products located
on the site of the sources covered by this permit. A BMP Plan shall be developed
inaccordance with the requirements of this section.
2. Management of Stormwater Runoff and Runon. The permittee shall maintain erosion and
sedimentation controls for land disturbance areas and outside process areas. In addition,
some of the same controls for erosion and sedimentation control (e.g. vegetated diversion
berms or dikes) should be used to limit or isolate selected land disturbance and process
areas and limit the amount of off site stormwater runon to those areas. Appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to divert, infiltrate, reuse or otherwise
manage stormwater runoff or runon in a manner that reduces pollutants in stormwater
discharges leaving the site. Appropriate BMPs may include but not limited to: vegetative
swales, berms, use of reclaimed mine areas, and reuse of collected stormwater (such as
for an industrial process or as an irrigation source).
3. BMP Controls Inspection and Maintenance. All erosion and sedimentation control
facilities shall be inspected by or under the direction of the permittee at least once every
seven calendar days and within 24 hours after any storm event that results in a discharge.
The control structures implemented for erosion and sedimentation control shall be
operated and maintained.so that the controls are cleaned out when the sediment storage
capacity has been reduced by 50% in accordance with the provisions in the mining
permit. If any offsite sedimentation is leaving the property, corrective action shall be
taken to reduce the discharge of sediments. Visible sedimentation found offsite shall be
recorded with a brief explanation as to the measures taken to prevent future releases as
well as any measures taken to clean up the sediment that left the site. All other
stormwater specific controls (e.g. oil /water separators) shall be inspected and
qualitatively monitored (as per Part III.13.3) on a semiannual schedule, once in the fall
(September -November) and once during the Spring (April -June). A log of sampling data
and of activities taken to implement BMPs associated with the vehicle maintenance
activities shall be maintained and incorporated into the BMP Plan and kept onsite for the
duration of the permit term and made available to the Director upon request.
4. Erosion and Sedimentation Control. The permittee shall implement management
practices and the erosion and sedimentation control measures that are included in the
mining permit approved by the Division of Land Resources. The approved mining permit
is considered a requirement or condition of this general permit. Deviation from the
approved mining permit, or approved amendment to the permit, that impact water quality
shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of this general permit. A signed
copy of the issued mining permit including the approved erosion and sedimentation
control measures and the reclamation plan shall be maintained on the site at all times.
Part III Page I of 9

Permit No. NCG020000
Once an area is released by the Division of Land Resources in accordance with NCGS
Chapter 74, Article 7, it shall no longer be subject to this general permit.
S. Preventive Maintenance Inspections and Good Housekeeping Practices. Equipment
utilized during mining activity on a site must be operated and maintained in such a
manner as to prevent potential or actual pollution of the surface or ground waters of the
state. Fuels, lubricants, coolants, and hydraulic fluids, or any other petroleum products,
shall not be discharged on to the ground or into surface waters. Spent fluids shall be
disposed of in a manner so as not to enter the surface or ground waters of the state and in
accordance with applicable federal disposal regulations. Any spilled fluids shall be
cleaned up to the maximum extent practicable and disposed of in a manner that does not
allow their entry into the surface or ground waters of the state.
6. Secondary Containment. The permittee shall provide secondary containment for bulk
storage of liquid materials, storage of Section 313 of Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) water priority chemicals, or storage of
hazardous liquids substances to prevent leaks and spills from contaminating stormwater
runoff. If the secondary containment devices are connected directly to stormwater
conveyance systems, the connection shall be controlled by manually activated valves or
other similar devices [which shall be secured with a locking mechanism] and any
stormwater that accumulates in the containment area shall be at a minimum visually
observed for color, am, outfall staining, visible sheens and dry weather flow, prior to
release of the accumulated stormwater. Accumulated stormwater shall be released if
found to be uncontaminated by the material stored within the containment area.
SECTION B: ANALYTICAL AND QUALITATIVE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR
DISCHARGES COMPOSED ENTIRELY OF STORMWATER
Analytical monitoring of parameters for stormwater discharges shall be performed as specified in Tables
I through 4. All analytical monitoring shall be performed during a representative storm event;as defined
in Part VII. For each parameter, the arithmetic mean of all analytical sampling results collected during
the term of the permit may be calculated for each individual outfall and compared to the cut-off
concentrations listed in Tables 2 and 4. If the arithmetic mean is less than the specified cut-off
concentration for a given parameter, the facility is not required to continue annual monitoring for that
parameter (at that outfall) until the last year of the permit unless a significant change in facility
operations or configuration occurs. If a cut-off concentration results in discontinued analytical
monitoring at an individual discharge outfall, the permittee is required to maintain facility operations
that ensure the continuation of stormwater runoff quality. The Rermittee must perform analytical
sampling during -the first and last year of the permit term regardless of cut-off concentration conditions.
Analytical results from sampling during the final year of the permit term must be submitted with the
permit renewal application.
If the stormwater runoff is controlled by some type of erosion/sediment control basin or retention pond,
the following monitoring requirements apply in addition to the requirements in the Tables 1 and 3:
Part III Page 2 of 9

Permit No. NCGO20000
Table 2. Analytical Monitoring Cut-off Concentrations for Stormwater Discharges from
Land Disturbing Activities and Process Areas
Discharge
Characteristics
Cut-off Concentration
Settleable Solids
0.1 ml/1
Total Sus
ended Solids
100 mg/1
Turbidity
(Freshwater non -trout streams)
50 NTU
Turbidity
(Non -trout lakes and saltwaters)
25 NTU
Turbidity
(Trout waters)
10 NTU
2. 'Analytical Monitoring for On -site Vehicle Maintenance.
Facilities which have any on -site vehicle maintenance activity that uses more than 55 gallons of
new motor oil per month when averaged over the calendar year shall -perform analytical
monitoring as specified below in Table 3. This monitoring shall be performed at all outfalls
which discharge Stormwater runoff from the vehicle maintenance areas.
Table 3. Analytical Monitoring Requirements for Stormwater Discharges from On -Site
Vehicle Maintenance Areas
Discharge Characteristics'
Uhits, <u
t Measurement
Frequency
- Sample
T el
, Sample
`I:oeation2
H
S.U.
Annually
Grab
SDO
Oil and Grease
mg/1
Annually
Grab
SDO
Total Suspended Solids
mg/1
Annually
Grab
SDO
Total Rainfa113
Inches
Annually
Grab
--
Event Duration3
Minutes
Annually
Grab
--
Total Flow3
MG
Annually
Grab
SDO
Footnotes:
I The sample is collected within the first 30 minutes of discharge.
2 Sample location: Samples shall be collected at each stormwater discharge outfall (SDO) that discharges stormwater runoff from
area(s) where vehicle maintenance activities occur.
3 Total flow shall be: (a) measured continuously, (b) calculated based on the amount of area draining to the outfall, the amount of built -
upon (impervious) area, and the total amount of rainfall, or (c) estimated by the measurement of flow at 20 minute intervals during the
rainfall event. Total precipitation and duration of the rainfall event measured shall result from the sampled representative storm event.
Part III Page 4 of 9

Permit No. NCG020000
• Analytical monitoring for stormwater discharges from a sediment basin or other erosion and
sedimentation control structures designed to pass a storm event must be performed within the first 30
minutes of discharge. I
• Analytical monitoring for a retention pond designed to contain the 10-year design storm (see Part
VII, Definitions) without discharging is not required. Qualitative monitoring for color, foam, outfall
staining, visible sheen and dry weather flow is the only monitoring requirement.
• Analytical and qualitative monitoring are not required from a retention pond designed to contain the
25-year, 24-hour storm (see Part VII, Definitions) without discharging as the pond is considered a
non -discharging stormwater control.
I. Analytical Monitoring for Stormwater Discharges from Land Disturbance and Process
Areas.
These requirements shall be performed as specified in Table 1.
Table 1. Analytical Monitoring Requirements for Stormwater Discharges from Land
Disturbing Activities and Process Areas
Discharge h::.:
Characteristics
_:
Units ;
.Measurement
rrr�;Fi�e uenc 1' '
Sample ,;
:T e� `
:Sample
�.Locaiion3:
Settleable Solids
mlll
AnnuallX
Grab
SDO
Total Suspended Solids
mgfl
Annually
Grab
SDO
Turbidity
NTU
AnnuallX
Grab
SDO'
Total Rainfall4
inches
Annually--
--
Event Duration4
I minutes
Annually--
--
Total Flow4
I MG
Annually
--
SDO,
Footnotes:
1 Measurement Frequency: once per year during a representative storm event. A year is defined as the 12 month period beginning on the month and day
of issuance of the Certificate of Coverage.
2 The sample is collected within the first 30 minutes of discharge from the outfall.
3 Sample Location: Samples shall be collected at each Stormwater discharge outfall (SDO) unless representative outfall status has been granted.
4 For each sampled representative storm event. the total precipitation, storm duration, and total flow must be monitored. Total flow shall Ibe either; (a)
measured continuously, (b) calculated based on the amount of area draining to the outfall, the amount of built -upon (impervious) area, and the total
amount of rainfall, or (c) estimated by the measurement of flow at 20 minute intervals during the rainfall event.
Part 11I Page 3 of 9

Permit No. NCG020000
Table 4. Cut-off Concentrations for On -Site Vehicle Maintenance Activities
Dischar a Characteristics
Cut-off Concentration
HI
within range 6.0 — 9.0
Oil and Grease
30 m I
Total Suspended Solids
100 m I
Footnotes:
I pH cannot be averaged due to the nature of the logarithmic pH scale. 'nte most recent pH sample result shall be used for cut-off
concentration purposes.
3. Qualitative Monitoring for Stormwater for Process Areas and Vehicle Maintenance Areas.
Qualitative monitoring requires a visual inspection of all stormwater outfalls with stormwater
runoff from process or vehicle maintenance areas regardless of representative outfall status or
cut-off concentrations and shall be performed as specified below in Table 5. No analytical tests
are required.
The first qualitative monitoring event during the term of the permit must coincide with the initial
analytical monitoring event (regardless of the season). All other qualitative monitoring will be
performed twice per year, once in the spring (April - June) and once in the fall (September -
November) and does not need to be performed during a representative storm event.
Table 5. Qualitative Monitoring Requirements for Process Areas
And Vehicle Maintenance Areas
Discharge Characteristics
'Frequency,,..
..Monitoring
Locationf
Color
Semi -Annual
SDO
Odor
Semi -Annual
SDO
Claris
Semi -Annual
SDO
Floating Solids
Semi -Annual
SDO
Suspended Solids
Semi -Annual
SDO
Foam
Semi -Annual
SDO
Oil Sheen
Semi -Annual
SDO
Other obvious indicators
of stormwater pollution
Semi -Annual
SDO
Footnotes:
I Monitoring Location: Qualitative monitoring shall be performed at each stormwater discharge outfall (SDO) associated with process areas
and vehicle maintenance areas regardless of representative outfall status.
Part III Page 5 of 9

Permit No. NCGO20000
SECTION C: EFFLUENT MONITORING AND LIMITATIONS REQUIREMENTS
FOR MINE DEWATERING AND PROCESS WASTEWATER
1. Mine Dewatering (including Borrow Pits)
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the permittee
is authorized to discharge mine dewatering. Mine dewatering activities that have the potential to drain
wetlands must comply with the following requirements:
• Operation and Monitoring Plan approved by the Division.
• Maximum of three days pumping followed by seven days of not pumping.
• Install monitoring wells along a transect or in several directions of the pumping and supply data to
the Division for review in order to demonstrate the effect of pumping. Adverse impacts as a result
of pumping requires alteration of the pumping regime to reduce the impact.
• The discharge location for water shall be into adjacent, upslope wetlands as much as possible in
order to maintain their hydrology and must be shown on the operation and monitoring plan.
• Alternative site specific pumping and monitoring regimes must be approved by the Division on a
case by case basis.
Mine dewatering that is directly pumped from the pit through an erosion and sedimentation control
structure prior to discharging to surface waters is not required to receive an authorization to construct in
accordance with Part 11, Sections A and B. Mine dewatering discharges which requires additional
treatment other than erosion and sedimentation control structures are subject to the authorization to
construct requirement.
Analytical monitoring of mine dewatering shall be performed as specified below in Table 6. For each
parameter, an effluent limitation is contained in Table 9. An exceedence of any of these limitations is a
violation of the permit conditions and may be subject to enforcement action as specified in Part W,
Section A.2 of this permit.
Table 6. Monitoring Requirements for Mine Dewatering
Discharge
Characteristics
Units'
Measurement-
Fre uenc 1
Sample'
T e2
- °°Sample
°Location3
H
s.u.
Quarterly
Grab
E
Settleable Solids
ml/l
Quarterly
Grab
E
Total Suspended Solids5
mg/1
Quarterly
Grab
E
Turbidity
NTU
Quarterly
Grab
E or U,D
Total Flow4
MG
Qua rterly
-
E
Footnotes-
1 The monitoring frequency is quarterly unless the effluent limitation in Table 9 is exceeded at which time monthly
monitoring will be required for that parameter for the remaining permit term.
2 A grab sample is not required for pH and TSS from a sediment pond designed to contain or treat process wastewater that
results from rainfall in excess of 10-yr, 24-hr storm (this exemption is not available for mine dewatering of clay pits).
3 Sample Location: E — Effluent, U — Upstream, D — Dowmstream
Part III Page 6 of 9

Permit No. NCG020000
4 Total How shall be continuous flow measurement. Alternatively, pump curves and pump logs may be used as a means to
record flow.
5 Only facilities mining Industrial Sand are required to monitor for this parameter.
2. Wastewater Associated With Sand/Gravel Mining
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the permittee
is authorized to discharge wastewater from mining of sand and/or gravel operations. For the purposes of
this permit, wastewater from mining of sand and/or gravel is water that drains from the mined sand
and/or gravel through an erosion and sedimentation control prior to discharging to surface waters.
Authorization to construct and operate requirements (Part II, Sections A and B) are not applicable to this
type of wastewater operation.
Analytical monitoring of wastewater draining from mined sand and/or gravel shall be performed as
specified below in Table 7. For each parameter, an effluent limitation is contained in Table 9. An
exceedence of any of these limitations will result in a violation of the permit conditions and may be
subject to enforcement action as specified in Part IV, Section A.2 of this permit.
Table 7. Monitoring Requirements for Wastewater from Sand and/or Gravel Mining
Discharge
Characteiistiies
; ' ,� , -
Un►ts`"'r
Measurement
'Fr 6 uenc I
Sample
T 2
;`Sample
LprAitioli y
H
s.u.
Quarterly
Grab
E
Settleable Solids
ml/l
Quarterly
Grab
E
Total Suspended Solids5
mg/1
Quarterly
Grab
E
Turbidity
NTU
Quarterly
Grab
E or U,D
Total Flow4
MG
Quarterly
-
E
Footnotes:
I The monitoring frequency is quarterly unless the effluent limitation in Table 9 is exceeded at which time monthly
monitoring will be required for that parameter for the remaining permit term.
2 A grab sample is not required for pH and TSS from a sediment pond designed to contain or treat process wastewater that
results from rainfall in excess of 10-yr, 24-hr storm.
3 Sample Location: E — Effluent, or combined (U — Upstream, D — Downstream)
4 Total Flow shall be continuous flow measurement. Alternatively, pump curves and pump logs may be used as a means to
record flow.
5 Only facilities mining Industrial Sand are required to monitor for this parameter.
3. Overflow From a Closed Loop Process Recycle Wastewater System Designed to Operate With
Minimum of Two Feet of Freeboard
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the permittee
is authorized to discharge overflow from the following closed loop process recycle wastewater systems
Part III Page 7 of 9

Perntit No. NCG020000
designed and operated with two feet of freeboard during normal operation:
a) Sand or Stone Washing Operations
b) Dimension Stone Cutting Operations
c) Crusher Dust Control Operations
For the purposes of this permit, overflow refers to a discharge that occurs as a result of a precipitation
event that over -tops the two feet of freeboard. Closed loop is defined as limiting the water'entering the
system to makeup water that is added to operate the system at or below the two feet of freeboard and/or
precipitation that falls directly into the system. The system would also be designed to exclude
stormwater runoff from draining into the system. Authorization to construct and operate requirements
(Part II, Sections A and B) are not applicable to this type of process wastewater operation.
No analytical monitoringis for mine overflow from closed Ioop process recycle wastewater
systems designed to operate with two feet of freeboard.
4. Overflow From Other Process Recycle Wastewater Systems
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the permittee
is authorized to discharge overflow from the following process recycle wastewater systems that are not
designed as closed loop recycle systems with two feet of freeboard:
a) Sand and/or Gravel Washing Operations
b) Dimension Stone Cutting Operations
c) Air Scrubbing and Dust Control Operations
Analytical monitoring of overflow from process recycle wastewater systems that are not designed as
closed loop recycle systems with two feet of freeboard shall be performed as specified below in Table 8.
For the purposes of this permit, overflow refers to a discharge of process wastewater as a result of a
precipitation event. These systems don't meet the requirements for closed loop and are not designed and
operated with two feet of freeboard. Authorization to construct and operate requirements (Part II,
Sections A and B) are applicable to this type of process wastewater operation.
Table 8. Monitoring Requirements for Overflow From Process Recycle Wastewater Systems
Discharge .-
-Characteristics
Unit.,
•'Measurement
"Fre uenc t
Sample : <
'Type2
Sample
Location3
H
S.U.
Quarterly
Grab
E
Settleable Solids
ml/1
Quarterly
Grab
E
Total Suspended Solids5
m I
Quarterly
Grab
E
Turbidity
NTU
Quarterly
Grab
E or U,D
Total Flow4
MG
Quarterly
-
E
Footnotes:
1 The monitoring frequency is quarterly unless the effluent limitation in 'fable 9 is exceeded at which time monthly
monitoring will be required for that parameter for the remaining permit term.
Part III Page 8 of 9

Permit No. NCG020000
2 A grab sample is not required for pH and TSS from a sediment pond designed to contain or treat process wastewater that
results from rainfall in excess of 10-yr, 24-hr storm.
3 Sample Location: E — Effluent, or combined (U — Upstream, D — Dowmstream)
4 Total Flow shall be continuous flow measurement. Alternatively, pump curves and pump logs may be used as a means to
record flow.
5 Only facilities mining Industrial Sand are required to monitor for this parameter.
Table 9. Effluent Limitations for Process Wastewater and Mine dewatering
Discharge Characteristics
Discharge Limitations.
Monthly Averse .
Daily Maximum
Settleable Solids
0.1 ml/l
0.2 mlll
Total Sus ended Solids (Industrial Sand Mining)
25 mgn
45 m
H Range'
--------
6.0 — 9.0
Turbidity (Freshwater non -trout streams)
--------
50 NTU
Turbidity (Non -trout lakes and saltwaters)
--------
25 NTU
Turbidity (Trout waters)
--------
10 NTU
Footnotes:
1 Alternatively, the pH range for saltwater is 6.8-8.5. Designated swamp waters can have a pH as low as 4.3 if due to
natural conditions.
BMP Conditions
1. The permittee shall utilize best management practices to ensure tat contaminants do not enter the surface waters as a
result of blasting at the site.
2. The permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director prior to utilizing any chemical flocculants.
6. Residual Management
The residuals generated from treatment facilities used to meet the maximum effluent limitations
must be disposed of in accordance with General Statue 143-215.1. and in a manner such as to
prevent any pollutants from such materials from entering waters of the State or navigable waters
of the United States.
Part III Page 9 of 9

Permit No. NCG020000
PART IV STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES STORMWATER
GENERAL PERMITS
SECTION A: COMPLIANCE AND LIABILITY
1. Compliance Schedule
a. The permittee shall comply with Limitations and Controls specified for stormwater
discharges in accordance with the following schedule:
(1) For Process and Vehicle Maintenance Activities:
(a) Existing Facilities with First Stormwater Permit. Develop and implement BMPs
and stormwater controls as appropriate within the first 12 moriths of permit
coverage.
(b) Proposed Facilities. Develop and implement BMPs and stormwater controls, as
appropriate prior to beginning reining operations.
(2) For Land Disturbance Activities:
(a) Existing Facilities with First Stormwater Permit. Implement BMPs and
stormwater controls as appropriate, on the effective date of permit coverage.
(b) Proposed Facilities. Develop and implement BMPs and stormwater controls as
appropriate prior to beginning land disturbance activity.
b. The permittee shall comply with Effluent Limitations for wastewater discharges by the
effective date of the permit.
2. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this general permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for
enforcement action; for certificate of coverage termination, revocation and reissuance, or
modification; or denial of a certificate of coverage upon renewal application.
a. The permittee shall comply with standards or prohibitions established under
section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time
provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions, even if
the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.
b. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates'a permit condition is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation. Any.
person who negligently violates any permit condition is subject to criminal
penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more
than I year, or both. Any person who knowingly violates permit conditions is
Part IV Page 1 of 1 I

Permit No. NCG020000
subject to criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. Also, any person who violates a
permit condition may be assessed an administrative penalty not to exceed $10,000
per violation with the maximum amount not to exceed $125,000. [Ref: Section
309 of the Federal Act 33 USC 1319 and 40 CFR 122.41(a)]
C. Under state law, a daily civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars
($10,000) per violation may be assessed against any person who violates or fails
to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit. [Ref:
North Carolina -General Statutes 143-215.6A]
d. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Director for
violating section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any.permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of the Act. Administrative penalties for Class I violations are not to
exceed $10,000 per violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty
assessed not to exceed $25,000. Penalties for Class H violations are not to exceed
$10,000 per day for each day during which the violation continues, with the
maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed $125,000.
3. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in
violation of this general permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting
human health or the environment.
4. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in Section C of this permit regarding bypassing of stormwater control
facilities, nothing in this general permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-
215.3, 143-215.6A, 143-215.613, 143-215.6C or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33 USC
1319. Furthermore, the permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as fish
kills, even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily
suspended.
5. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this general permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal
action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which
the permittee is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the
Federal Act, 33 USC 1321.
6. Property Rights
The issuance of this general permit does not convey any property rights in either real or
personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private
Part IV Page 2 of 11

Permit No. NCG020000
property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or
local laws or regulations.
7. Severability
The provisions of this general permit are severable, and if any provision of this general
permit, or the application of any provision of this general permit to any circumstances, is
held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder
of this general permit, shall not be affected thereby.
8. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any information
which the Director may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying,
revoking and reissuing, or terminating the certificate of coverage issued pursuant to this
general permit or to determine compliance with this general permit. The permittee shall
also furnish to the Director upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this
general permit.
9. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly
renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this
general permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more that $20,000 per day of violation,
or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both.
10, Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to
be maintained under this general permit, including monitoring reports or reports of
compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more
than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation,
or by both.
SECTION B: GENERAL CONDITIONS
General Permit Expiration
The permittee is not authorized to discharge after the expiration date. In order to receive
automatic authorization to discharge beyond the expiration date, the permittee shall
submit forms and fees as are required by the agency authorized to issue permits no later
than 180 days prior to the expiration date. Any permittee that has not requested renewal
Part IV Page 3 of I 1

Permit No. NCGO20000
at least 180 days prior to expiration, or any permittee that does not have a permit after the
expiration and has not requested renewal at least 180 days prior to expiration, will be
subjected to enforcement procedures as provided in NCGS §143-2153.6 and 33 USC
1251 et. seq.
2. Transfers
The certificate of coverage issued pursuant to this general permit is not transferable to
any person except after notice to and approval by the Director. The Director may require
modification or revocation and reissuance of the certificate of coverage to change the
name and incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the Clean
Water Act.
3. When an Individual Permit May be Required
The Director may require any owner/operator authorized to discharge under a certificate
of coverage issued pursuant to this general permit to apply for and obtain an individual
permit or coverage under an alternative general permit. Any interested person may
petition the Director to take action under this paragraph. Cases where an individual
permit may be required include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The discharger is a significant contributor of pollutants;
b. Conditions at the permitted site change, altering the constituents and/or
characteristics of the discharge such that the discharge no longer qualifies for a
general permit;
The discharge violates the terms or conditions of this general permit;
d. A change has occurred in the availability of demonstrated technology or practices
for the control or abatement of pollutants applicable to the point source;
C. Effluent limitations are promulgated for the point sources covered by this general
permit;
f. A water quality management plan containing requirements applicable to such
point sources is approved after the issuance of this general permit.
g. The Director determines at his own discretion that an individual permit is
required.
4. When an Individual Permit May be Requested
Any permittee operating under this general permit may request to be excluded from the
coverage of this general permit by applying for an individual permit. When an individual
permit is issued to an owner/operator the applicability of this general permit is
automatically terminated on the effective date of the individual permit.
Part IV Page 4 of 1 I

Permit No. NCG020000
5. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Director shall be signed and
certified.
a. All notices of intent to be covered under this general permit shall be signed as
follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of
this Section, a responsible corporate officer means: (a) a president,
secretary, treasurer or vice president of the corporation in charge of a
principal business function, or any other person who performs similar
policy or decision making functions for the corporation, or (b) the manager
of one or more manufacturing production or operating facilities employing
more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures
exceeding 25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign
documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the
proprietor, respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a
principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
b. All reports required by the general permit and other information requested by the
Director shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
The authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity,
such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or well field,
superintendent, a position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or
position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the,
company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named
individual or any individual occupying a named position.); and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Director.
Any person signing a document under paragraphs a. or b. of this section shall
make the following certification:
"I certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed
to assure that qualified personnel properly gather -and evaluate the information
Part IV Page 5 of 11

Pemzit No. NCG020000
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
.and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing
violations."
6. General Permit Modification Revocation and Reissuance or Termination
The issuance of thisgeneral permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and
modifying the general permit, revoking and reissuing the general permit, or terminating
the general permit as allowed by the laws, rules, and regulations contained in Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15A of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H .0100; and North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.1 et. al.
After public notice and opportunity for a hearing, the general permit may be terminated
for cause. The filing of a request for a general permit modification, revocation and
reissuance, or termination does not stay any general permit condition. The certificate of
coverage shall expire when the general permit is terminated.
7_ Certificate of Coverage Actions
The certificate of coverage issued in accordance with this general permit may be
modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The notification of planned
changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any general permit condition.
SECTION C: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the
permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this general permit. Proper
operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate
quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or
auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a permittee only when the
operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the general permit.
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with
the condition of this general permit.
3. Bypassing, of Stormwater Control Facilities
Part IV Page 6 of 11

Pemiir No. NCG020000
Bypass is prohibited and the Director may take enforcement action against a permittee
for bypass unless:
a. - Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property
damage; and
b. There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary
control facilities, retention of stormwater or maintenance during normal periods of
equipment downtime or dry weather. This condition is not satisfied if adequate
backup controls should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable
engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods
of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and
C. The vermittee submitted notices as required under Section E of this permit.
If the Director determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above, the Director
may approve an anticipated bypass after considering its adverse effects.
SECTION D: MONITORING AND RECORDS
Representative Sampling
Samples collected and measurements taken, as required herein, shall be characteristic of
the volume and nature of the permitted discharge. Analytical sampling shall be
performed during a representative storm event. Samples shall be taken on a day and time
that is characteristic of the discharge. All samples shall be taken before the discharge'
joins or is diluted by any other waste stream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring
points as specified in this permit shall not be changed without notification to and
approval of the Director.
2. Recording Results
For each measurement, sample, inspection or maintenance activity performed or collected
pursuant to the requirements of this general permit, the permittee shall record the
following information:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling, measurements, inspection or
maintenance activity;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling, measurements, inspection or
maintenance activity;
C. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
Part IV Page 7 of 11

Permit No. NCG020000
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
The results of such analyses.
3. Flow Measurements
Where required, appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with
accepted scientific practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and
reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges.
4. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations
published pursuant to NCGS 143-215.63 et. seq, the Water and Air Quality Reporting
Acts, and to regulations published pursuant to Section 304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, and Regulation 40 CFR 136.
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this general permit, all test procedures
must produce minimum detection and reporting levels and all data generated must be
reported down to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the procedure.
5. Non-Stormwater Discharges
If a monitored storm event coincides with a non-stormwater discharge, the permittee shall
separately monitor all parameters as required under the non-stormwater discharge permit
and provide this information with the stormwater discharge monitoring report.
6. Representative Outfall
If a facility has multiple discharge locations with substantially identical stormwater
discharges that are required to be sampled, the permittee may petition the Director for
representative outfall status. If it is established that the stormwater discharges are
substantially identical and the permittee is granted representative outfall status, then
sampling requirements may be performed at a reduced number of outfalls.
7. Records Retention
Qualitative monitoring shall be documented and records maintained at the facility.
Copies of analytical monitoring results shall also be maintained on -site. The permittee
shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and
maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring
instrumentation, and copies of all reports required by this general permit for a period of at
least 5 years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period
may be extended by request of the Director at any time.
Inspection and Entry
Part IV Page 8 of I 1

Pemdt No. NCG020000
The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an
authorized contractor acting as a representative'of the Director), or in the case of a facility
which discharges through a municipal separate storm sewer system, an authorized
representative of a municipal operator or the separate storm sewer system receiving the
discharge, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required
by law, to;
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this
general permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under
the conditions of this general permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and
control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this
general permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring general
permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any
substances or parameters at any location.
SECTION E: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Discharge Monitoring Reports
Samples analyzed in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be submitted to the
Division on Discharge Monitoring Report forms provided by the Director. Submittals
shall be received by the Division no later than 30 days from the end of the monitoring
period.
Documentation of the qualitative monitoring associated with the initial analytical
monitoring event shall be included with the required analytical monitoring submittal for
the first year of the permit coverage.
Analytical results from sampling during the final year of the permit term shall be
submitted with the permit renewal application.
2. Submitting Reports
Duplicate signed copies of all reports required herein, shall be submitted to the following
address:
Part IV Page 9 of 11

Permit No. NCG020000
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section
ATTENTION: Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3(a)(2) or Section
308 of the Federal Act; 33 USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms
shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Division of Water Quality. As
required by the Act, analytical data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly
making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal
penalties as provided for in NCGS 143-215.6B or in Section 309 of the Federal Act.
4. Non-Stormwater Discharges
If the storm event monitored in accordance with this general permit coincides with a non-
stormwater discharge, the permittee shall separately monitor all parameters as required
under the non-stormwater discharge permit and provide this information with the
stormwater discharge monitoring report.
5. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned changes
at the permitted facility which could significantly alter the nature or quantity of pollutants
discharged. This notification requirement includes pollutants which are not specifically
listed in the general permit or subject to notification requirements under 40 CFR Part
122.42 (a).
6. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned changes
at the permitted facility which may result in noncompliance with the general permit
requirements.
7. Bypass
a. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it
shall submit prior notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass;
including an evaluation of the anticipated quality and affect of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice within 24 hours of
becoming aware of an unanticipated bypass.
8. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
Part IV Page 10 of 11

Pemzit No. NCG020000
The permittee shall report to the central office or the appropriate regional office any
noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be
provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the
permittee becomes aware of the circumstances.
The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance, and its causes;
the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance
has not been corrected, the anticipated time compliance is expected to continue; and steps
taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
The Director may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis if the oral report has
been received within 24 hours.
9. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under 24 hour
reporting at the time monitoring reports are submitted.
10. Other Information
Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a Notice
of Intent to be covered under this general permit or in any report to the Director, it shall
promptly submit such facts or information.
Part IV Page 11 of 1 I

Permit No. NCG020000
PART V LIMITATIONS REOPENER
This general permit shall be modified or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any
applicable effluent guideline or water quality standard issued or approved under Sections 302(b)
(2) (c), and (d), 304(b) (2) and 307(a) of the Clean Water Act, if the effluent guideline or water
quality standard so issued or approved:
Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent than any effluent limitation
in the general permit; or
b. Controls any pollutant not limited in the general permit.
The general permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any other
requirements in the Act then applicable.
PART VI ADMINISTERING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE
REQUIREMENTS
The permittee must pay the administering and compliance monitoring fee within 30 (thirty) days
after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in timely manner in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H .0105(b)(4) may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the Certificate of
Coverage.
PART VII DEFINITIONS
Act
See Clean Water Act.
2_ Arithmetic Mean
The arithmetic mean of any set of values is the summation of the individual values
divided by the number of individual values.
3. Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharges
This permit regulates stormwater discharges. Non-stormwater discharges which shall be
allowed in the stormwater conveyance system are:
(a) All other discharges that are authorized by a non-stormwater NPDES permit.
Parts V, VI and VII Page 1 of 6

Permit No. NCG020000
(b) Uncontaminated groundwater, foundation drains, air -conditioner condensate
without added chemicals, springs, discharges of uncontaminated potable water,
waterline and fire hydrant flushings, water from footing drains, flows from
riparian habitats and wetlands.
(c) Discharges resulting from fire -fighting or fire -fighting training.
4. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Measures or practices used to reduce the amount of pollution entering surface waters.
BMPs may take the form of a process, activity, or physical structure.
Bypass
A bypass is the known diversion of stormwater from any portion of a stormwater control
facility including the collection system, which is not a designed or established operating
mode for the facility.
6. Bulk Storage of Liquid Products
Liquid raw materials, manufactured products, waste materials or by-products with a
single above ground storage container having a capacity of greater than 660 gallons or
with multiple above ground storage containers located in close proximity to each other
having a total combined storage capacity of greater than 1,320 gallons.
7. Certificate of Coverage
The Certificate of Coverage (COC) is the cover sheet which accompanies the general
permit upon issuance and lists the facility name, location, receiving stream, river basin;
effective date of coverage under the permit and is signed by the Director.
8. Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA),,as
amended, 33 USC 1251, et. seq.
9. Division or DWO
The Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
10, Director
The Director of the Division of Water Quality, the permit issuing authority.
11. EMC
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
Part VII Page 2 of 6

Permit No. NCG020000
12. Grab Sample
An individual samples collected instantaneously. Grab samples that will be directly
analyzed or qualitatively monitored must be taken within the first 30 minutes of
discharge.
13. Hazardous Substance
Any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act.
14. Landfill
A disposal facility or part of a disposal facility where waste is placed in or on land and
which is not a land treatment facility, a surface impoundment, an injection well, a
hazardous waste long-term storage facility or a surface storage facility.
15. Muni_cipaI Separate Storm Sewer System
A stormwater collection system within an incorporated area of local self-government
such as a city or town.
16. Notice of Intent
The state application form which, when submitted to the Division, officially indicates the
facility's notice of intent to seek coverage under a general permit.
17. Overburden
Any material of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies a mineral
deposit, excluding topsoil or similar naturally -occurring surface materials that are not
disturbed by mining operations.
18. Permittee
The owner or operator issued a certificate of coverage pursuant to this general permit.
19. Point Source Discharge of Stormwater
Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance including, but not specifically limited
to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, or discrete fissure from which
stormwater is or may be discharged to waters of the state.
20. Representative Storm Event
A storm event that measures greater than 0.1 inches of rainfall and that is preceded by at least 72
hours in which no storm event measuring greater than 0.1 inches has occurred. A single storm
Part VII Page 3 of 6

Permit No. NCG020000
event may contain up to 10 consecutive hours of no precipitation. For example, if it rains for 2
hours without producing any collectable discharge, and then stops, a sample may be collected if a
rain producing a discharge begins again within the next 10 hours.
21. Representative Outfall_Status
When it is established that the discharge of stormwater runoff from a single outfall is
representative of the discharges at multiple outfalls, the DWQ may grant representative
outfall status. Representative outfall status allows the permittee to perform analytical
monitoring at a reduced number of outfalls.
22. Rinse Water Discharge
The discharge of rinse water from equipment cleaning areas associated with industrial
activity. Rinse waters from vehicle and equipment cleaning areas are process
wastewaters and do not include wastewaters utilizing any type of detergent or cleaning
agent.
23. Secondary Containment
Spill containment for the contents of the single largest tank within the containment
structure plus sufficient freeboard to allow for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event.
24. Section 313 Water Priority Chemical
A chemical or chemical category which:
a. Is listed in 40 CFR 372.65 pursuant to Section 313 of Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, also titled the Emergency
Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act of 1986;
b. Is present at or above threshold levels at a facility subject to SARA title III,
Section 313 reporting requirements; and
C. That meet at least one of the following criteria:
(1) Is listed in appendix D of 40 CFR part 122 on either Table II (organic
priority pollutants), Table III (certain metals, cyanides, and phenols) or
Table IV (certain toxic pollutants and hazardous substances);
(2) Is listed as a hazardous substance pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the
CWA at 40 CFR 116.4; or
(3) Is a pollutant for which EPA has published acute or chronic water quality
criteria.
Part VII Page 4 of 6

Permit No. NCG020000
25. Severe Property Damage
Means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the control facilities which
causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources
which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property
damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production.
26. Significant_ Materials
Includes, but is not limited to: raw materials; fuels; materials such as solvents, detergents,
and plastic pellets; finished materials such as metallic products; raw materials used in
food processing or production; hazardous substances designated under section 10I (14) of
CERCLA; any chemical the facility is required to report pursuant to section 313 of Title
III of SARA; fertilizers; pesticides; and waste products such as ashes, slag and sludge that
have the potential to be released with stormwater discharges.
27. Significant Spills
Includes, but is not limited to: releases of oil or hazardous substances in excess of
reportable quantities under section 311 of the Clean Water Act (Ref: 40 CFR 110.10 and
CFR 117.21) or section 102 of CERCLA (Ref: 40 CFR 302.4).
28. Stormwater Runoff
The flow of water which results from precipitation and which occurs immediately
following rainfall or as a result of snowmelt.
29. Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity
The discharge from any point source which is used for collecting and conveying
stormwater and which is directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw material
storage areas at an industrial site. Facilities considered to be engaged in "industrial
activities" include those activities defined in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). The term does not
include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES program.
30. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
A comprehensive site -specific plan which details measures and practices to reduce
stormwater pollution and is based on an evaluation of the pollution potential of the site.
31. Ten Year Design Storm
The precipitation event of a duration which will produce the maximum peak rate of
runoff for the watershed of interest resulting from a rainfall event of an intensity expected
to be equaled or exceeded, on the average, once in ten years.
Part VII Page 5 of 6

Permit No. NCG020000
32. Total Flow
The flow corresponding to the time period over which the sample collection occurs. Total
flow shall be either; (a) measured continuously, (b) calculated based on the amount of area
draining to the outfall, the amount of built -upon (impervious) area, and the total amount of
rainfall, or (c) estimated by the measurement of flow at 20 minute intervals during the rainfall
event.
33. Toxic Pollutant
Any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
34. Upset
Means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment
or control facilities, inadequate treatment or control facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
35. Vehicle Maintenance Acti
Vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, lubrication, vehicle cleaning
operations, or airport deicing operations.
36. Visible Sedimentation
Solid particulate matter, both mineral and organic, that has been or is being transported
by water, air, gravity, or ice from its site of origin which can be seen with the unaided
eye.
37. 25-year, 24 hour storm event
The maximum 24-hour precipitation event expected to be equaled or exceeded, on the
average, once in 25 years.
Part VII Page 6 of 6

(Fz&) 3V: - 3?o
► �n��
�
� 1q
?33-5y�3 x5�5