20111013 Ver 2_Public Comments_20130722

Strickland, Bev
From: Karoly, Cyndi
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:58 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Vanceboro Quarry, Beaufort/Craven Counties, NC
ZOOM Me 7#ffX-aM
From: Bob Boulden [mailto:bbncltdCa)yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 10:57 AM
To: matt. mathewsCa)ncdenr.Qov; Stecker, Kathy; Belnick, Tom; Higgins, Karen; Karoly, Cyndi; Massengale, Susan; Adams,
Amy; mccarthy.aina epa.aov; ailes- aa.cynthia epa.Qov; meibura.stan epa.Qov; aiattina.jim epa.Qov;
lincoln.larryaepa.Qov; Ghosh.Ben(d)epa.aov
Subject: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Vanceboro Quarry, Beaufort /Craven Counties, NC
Good Morning All!
Some of you I have spoken with before, so I ask for your patience please. I'm a retired Environmental Engineer
who moved to NC about 4 years ago. When I was still working it was my understanding that state implemented
plans were to be as strict, and perhaps more stringent than the Federal requirements of the CWA. If that is no
longer true, please advise.
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMM) contracted with Kimley -Horn and Associates (KH) to generate a
"Water Quality Analysis" report. Reading from the report KH states: "The two main water quality parameters
that the quarry dewatering discharge could affect are pH and salinity. The pH of the existing headwater /swamp
streams is very low (4.0 to 5.5). The results of the analysis predict that the pH of these systems would be
elevated to 6.5 to 6.9."
Under 15A NCAC 02B.0211(3)(g) it states: "pH: shall be normal for the waters in the area, which generally
shall range between 6.0 and 9.0 except that swamp water may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of
natural conditions;" and under 15A NCAC 02B.0231(b)(5)(E) it further states: "Hydrological conditions
necessary to support the biological and physical characteristics naturally present in wetlands shall be protected
to prevent adverse impacts on the pH of the wetland; ".
What I fail to understand is WHY a draft NPDES permit was ever issued to MMM, and subsequently a 401
Certification HAS been issued. The outcome of the Public Hearing held back in April of this year concerning
the draft permit is still pending - again WHY? If the law /regulation will be "broken" when MMM starts to
discharge up to 12,000,000 gpd to the headwaters of Blounts Creek, WHY are we (there were over 1000
signatures on a petition against the discharge) still discussing this matter? Hopefully, someone will be able to
make me understand why this project is still moving forward instead of having been terminated long ago.
I look forward to your response! If you would like to discuss any of the points I've brought to your attention,
please contact me by return email or call me at 252- 402 -5564. Have a great day!
Respectfully,
Bob Boulden