The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNCG02 Comments from Sibelco North America, Inc 4SIBELCO ; Sibelco North America, Inc. 136 Crystal Drive• Spruce Pine,NC 28777 (PHONE)828/765-1114• (FAX)828/765-4755 June 14,2021 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Attn: DEMLR Stormwater Program Mr. Paul Clark 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh,NC 27604 paul.clarkkncdenr.gov Re: Public Comment—Draft NPDES General Permit NCG02 (Mining Activities) Dear Mr. Clark: Sibelco North America, Inc. (Sibelco) is submitting these comments in support of revisions to the above referenced permit. The NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Energy, Minerals, and Land Resources (DEMLR)reopened public comment on the permit on May 17, 2021, with a deadline for public comments to be submitted by June 16, 2021. The following comments and concerns I have for the draft permit: • Part B, condition B-6 states"The SWPPP shall include a signed copy of the first page of the Mining Permit issued by the Division's Mining Program,the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan and the approved reclamation plan." Including all of this documentation with the SWPPP will be extremely cumbersome to achieve. Two of my three mining facilities have numerous erosion control plans for many different areas and numerous sediment basins,large dwgs, detailed plans, stability analysis with erosion plans, etc. The previous permit, in part III page 2 of 5, stated "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." All of these approved erosion plans are maintained on site as per the previous requirement(and as required by the mining permit)and can be viewed upon request. I have a filing cabinet completely full of erosion control plans and documents. Copying all of these documents for storage with the SWPPP is virtually impossible. I believe this is unnecessary and is requested to revert to the older permit language of`maintaining on site at all times' • Part B,condition B-14: Same as B-6,maintaining numerous files will overburden the SWPPP file. Rather than duplicating so many files in the SWPPP(numerous pages of design calcs, as- Mr. Paul Clark Page 2 built large dwgs, etc.),request to modify `files must be maintained on site and available per request of the inspector'. • Parts B/F,conditions B-14/F-7(c):Analytical monitoring is not required for basin designed to contain the 25-year,24-hour storm without discharging. Can this be considered changed to 1110- year,24-hour storm"more in line with current Land Quality regulations. Land Quality regulations require basins to contain the 10-yr 24-hr storm event and pass the 25-yr 24-hr event, therefore many basins are likely but unknown if they can indeed contain the 25-year. Rather than performing numerous calculations,re-designs and modifying existing structures,can you be consistent with other regulatory sections allowing the 10-year 24-hour storm event for this exemption so facilities can utilize existing designs that have been approved for years rather than performing costly and time consuming design updates. • Part D,D-1(g)requires notification in writing 30 days prior to reactivating and/or commencing mining activity after receiving dormant status. I do not understand why this cannot be reduced to merely `prior'with no timing or even within `30 days after reactivating'. The erosion plans are in place, and if followed should be more than sufficient to release dormant status,even after reactivation occurs. It is highly unlikely an on-site inspection is made in 30 days, as this is just a mere letter for the file so the Division is aware of operating and an inspection can be made at some point in the future. Thus I would propose this language be changed to notifying the Division in writing at least thirty (30) days "after" rather than prior to reactivating. Or at least reduced to merely "prior" with no time limit. As this is an unnecessary measure that prohibits operation and revenue. If there is some reason I am missing why this unduly requirement limiting production is in place, please at minimum consider reducing to 10 or 15 days to help industry during these circumstances. • Table F-3 Stormwater Metals Benchmark: I generally do not see benchmarks for aluminum,of which I am aware is frequently utilized in DWR approved PAMS/Flocculants. Aluminum limitation is not reflected in North Carolina's Red Book water quality standards nor is a quantity of aluminum listed in EPA's National Water Quality Criteria. I am concerned where these benchmark concentrations were derived from and wish to assure justification for being imposed. I appreciate this opportunity to provide comments. If you have any questions regarding these comments,please do not hesitate to contact me at(828)765-1114 ext. 1602. Sincerely, Jreye son,P.E. Sustainability Manager Americas SIBELCO NORTH AMERICA, INC.