20111013 Ver 2_Public Notice Comments_20130207

Strickland, Bev
From: Karoly, Cyndi
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 2:19 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Proposed discharge permit in Beaufort County
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Jackie Alexander [ mailto :iackiemalexander(@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:46 PM
To: Karoly, Cyndi
Cc: Heather; Phyllis Manning
Subject: Proposed discharge permit in Beaufort County
I am writing to express concern over the proposed discharge permit for Martin Marietta. The
available options for the discharge indicate that options are available that might eliminate
any risk to the creek and river, although at a greater cost. The cost of the options seem
significant, but may not be as significant when considering the value of the mine, number of
years of operation, and profitability to Martin Marietta. Also, you may review the balance
sheet and income statement of Martin Marietta and see that it is a well capitalized and
highly profitable company, with assets and revenues measured in the hundreds of millions.
The company is seeking the lowest cost option, even if that option transfers costs to the
environment.
While testing seems to have been thorough, the results of the tests
will not be known until wastewater is discharged. I believe that
somewhat similar issues were dealt with when wells and treatment systems were installed in
the area several years ago, and concerns were expressed over the salt water discharge
proposed for Blounts Creek. While this sounds like a different problem, I believe the
decision was made then to pipe the discharge all the way to the Pamlico River. I only
mention this for comparison sake and don't recall testing at the time over the options
available. Of course, the costs were passed on directly to the tax payer, and the creek was
spared a potential problem.
I have seen for years the stresses placed on the Pamlico and its tributaries, and in the
current situation, the river and creek should not have to bear any risk for a wealthy private
enterprise that is able to afford the risk. If the permit is issued for discharge into the
creek, the permit should provide for follow up testing to confirm the actual impact. Then
corrective action should be taken to eliminate any damage, with one of the other options
brought in.
I would like to mention in closing, that my career was in business, I believe in free
enterprise, but I also believe that historically, and today, companies have been willing to
pass on environmental costs that they should have been required to pay.
Thank you,
Steve Alexander
Clemmons, NC
1