NC0089168_Draft_Fact Sheet_20240820

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NCOO89168
Permit Writer/Email Contact: Derek Denard, [e-mail]
Date: DRAFT August 20, 2024
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/Water Quality NPDES Permitting Section
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017
Permitting Action:
© Renewal
❑ Renewal with Expansion
❑ New Discharge
❑ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)
Note: A complete application should include the following: (See Attachment A)
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.
Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.
1. Basic Facility Information
Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name:
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc./Vanceboro Quarry
Applicant Address:
PO Box 30013, Raleigh, NC 27622
Facility Address:
Off of Welbourn Road near Vanceboro
Permitted Flow:
6.0 MGD (Outfall 001) & 6.0 MGD (Outfall 002) / 12.0 MGD total
Facility Type/Waste:
Minor (see Attachment B), Industrial Process & Commercial
Wastewater Discharge/Groundwater and Stormwater
Facility Class:
Physical Chemical Not Classified
Treatment Units:
two (2) pit clarification ponds (-50 million gallons each)
Pretreatment Program (Y/N)
N
County:
Beaufort
Region
Washington
Footnotes:
a. A NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet was completed in 2011 giving a score of 100 (See attachment
B 1). The work sheet was updated on May 28, 2024 giving a score of 95 (See Attachment B2). The
difference being the omission of 5 points under Conventional Pollutants due to TSS not having a
limit. The majority of the score was based on the facility scoring 50 points as a Type II Flow > 10
Page 1 of 12

MGD. Type II is defined as: process wastewaters include wastewaters resulting from most
manufacturing processes, contact cooling water, and contaminated surface run-off. Since this facility
has not been constructed and not commenced to discharge, facility rating will be given a rating of a
minor facility until total flow reported is greater than 10 MGD.
Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background:
• Martin Marietta Materials has requested to renew their permit (See Application Attachment A) for
proposed discharge of comingled groundwater and stormwater from a new mining operation. The
mining operation is anticipated to include a 649-acre open pit aggregate mine (at buildout) located
within a 1,664 acre quarry footprint. The entire quarry operation is to be located within a 90,000 acre
tract owned by Weyerhaeuser Company and managed as a pine plantation. The area has been
extensively ditched.
• Although a facility of this type typically obtains coverage under the NCG020000 General NPDES
stormwater permit, it was decided that the discharge volume and proximity to coastal waters
warranted that the facility obtain an individual NPDES wastewater permit.
• The extracted mineral is crushed limestone for use in the construction industry. Pit dewatering,
required to extract this material, will create a discharge of comingled groundwater and stormwater.
The flow from pit dewatering and comingled stormwater during full production is estimated to be
12.0 MGD. It is projected that full production may take decades to reach.
• The proposed discharge will mostly come from the Castle Hayne aquifer. Based on aquifer testing
data, this discharge is expected to have a pH of 6.9, an alkalinity of 321 mg/L, and a hardness of 316
mg/L.
• The facility will have two outfalls which discharge to separate tributaries of Blounts Creek in the Tar
Pamlico River Basin. Each outfall has a projected discharge of 6.0 MGD (Daily Maximums) for a
total of 12.0 MGD for both outfalls. Distributing flow to two separate ditches will act to minimize
potential geomorphic impacts.
• This site will not discharge any domestic wastewater, and does not include oxygen -demanding waste.
• Wastewater treatment will consist of two pit clarification ponds. These ponds have a capacity of
about 50 million gallons each.
• There will be a series of closed -loop settling cells which will provide 125 million gallons of plant
makeup water.
• No chemicals will be used in the processing of crushed stone or added to the discharge.
Summary of NC Supreme Court Decision:
The permit that was originally issued on July 24, 2013 faced many legal challenges beginning with Sound
Rivers, Inc. (formerly Pamlico -Tar River Foundation) and North Carolina Coastal Federation (together as
"Petitioners") filing a Petition for a Contested Case Hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH) on September 19, 2013. On November 30, 2016, an administrative law judge (ALJ) form OAH
affirmed the issuance of the Permit. The Petitioners then filed with the superior court which reversed the
ALYs decision because the Division failed to "ensure reasonable compliance with the biological integrity
standard." On 2 June 2020, the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, holding that "the ALJ
correctly determined the Permit was properly and validly issued in accord with applicable regulations."
On September 1, 2023, the NC Supreme Court concluded the following:
We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. In this case, the ALJ properly made findings of fact,
giving due regard to the demonstrated knowledge and expertise of the Division with respect to the
facts, and then properly applied those facts to a correct interpretation of the regulatory plain language.
Accordingly, we affirm the final decision by the ALJ as it relates to the biological integrity standard.
Please the attached final decision by the NC Supreme Court (Attachment Q.
Page 2 of 12

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s):
Outfall 001 — UT to Blounts
Creek
Outfall 002 - UT to Blounts
Creek
Stream Segment:
29-9-1-(1)
29-9-1-(1)
Stream Classification:
C; Sw, NSW
C; Sw, NSW
Drainage Area (mi2):
--
--
Summer 7Q10 (cfs)
0
0
Winter 7Q10 (cfs):
0
0
30Q2 (cfs):
0
0
Average Flow (cfs):
0
0
IWC (% effluent):
100
100
303(d) listed/parameter:
No
No
Subject to TMDL/parameter:
Yes — Tar River TMDL for TN & TP and Statewide Mercury
TMDL implementation.
Basin/Sub-basin/HUC:
Tar-Pamlico/03-03-07/030201040106
USGS Topo Quad:
Bath, NC
Notes from 2013 Factsheet [303(d) list information updated]:
• Both outfalls discharge to UTs to Blounts Creek. These discharge locations are considered zero -flow
freshwater streams. They are located approximately 1,100 feet apart.
• Blounts Creek is tributary to Blounts Bay, which flows into the Pamlico River.
• The outfalls are located at the headwaters of Blounts Creek. Blounts Creek from its source to Herring
Run is classified C-Swamp Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW); from Herring Run to Blounts Bay it is
classified SB-NSW. Herring Run is approximately three miles downstream from the confluence of
the outfalls.
• The outfalls are not located in a primary nursery area (PNA).
• Blounts Creek [29-9-1-(1)] is not on the 2022 303(d) list (See Attachment D1). However, Blounts
Bay [29-9] is listed as being impaired for copper (See Attachment D2). Further downstream,
PAMLICO RIVER (Pamlico Bath Segment) [29-(5)b2] is impaired for copper, and PAMLICO
RIVER (Pamlico Middle Segment) [29-(5)b3] is impaired for Chlorophyll and Copper (See
Attachment D3). This discharge is not expected to contribute to this impairment. The waste stream is
not considered a nutrient source and should not stimulate algal growth.
• USGS does not currently provide low -flow characteristics for streams affected by tidal influences.
Therefore low -flow characteristics cannot be determined for the location where Blounts Creek
discharges into Blounts Bay nor for the Pamlico River at Blounts Bay.
Page 3 of 12

3. Effluent Data Summary
No active discharge. No monitoring reports have been received for this permit as of December 2023.
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions
when model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to
verify model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other
instream concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also
Monitoring Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in
which case instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this
permit action: No discharge. No monitoring reports have been received for this permit as of February.
Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (YIN): NO.
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA.
5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): No discharge. No monitoring
reports have been received for this permit as of December 2023.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results
(past 5 years): Toxicity monitoring not required.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: NA.
6. Water Quality -Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixin Zones
ones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1 Q 10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q 10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non -carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results): NA.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): NA.
Oxygen -Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen -consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/1 for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
Ifpermit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: NA.
Page 4 of 12

Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/1(summer) and 1.8 mg/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria,
utilizing a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non -Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/1) and capped at 28 ug/1(acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all TRC values
reported below 50 ug/1 are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: No monitoring
required for ammonia or TRC, which are not pollutants of concern for the discharges from this facility.
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of/z detection limit for "less than" values; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
According to the 2013 Fact Sheet: The data set for a new discharge is limited to one groundwater sample
collected from the Castle Hayne aquifer (untreated) and one dewater effluent sample collected from a
similar limestone quarry operation (Clark Quarry). NC does not routinely conduct a statistical RPA
evaluation for one data point, and our most recent Monitoring/RPA procedures update (dated July 15,
2010, attached) reserves a statistical RPA procedure to data sets > 8 samples, consistent with EPA's
Technical Support Document (1991).
Given the lack of site -specific effluent data for the proposed discharge, Special Condition B. (4.)
Additional Monitoring & Application Requirement has been included for this permit renewal, requiring
the permittee to complete and submit items V and VI of Application Form 2C within one (1) year of
commencement of discharge. The permit may be reopened and modified if there are any parameters
detected at levels of concern.
Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging "complex" wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several
exceptions. The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in
NPDES permits, using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test
failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: A toxicity testing requirement was not proposed for this
application. The discharge consists solely of mine dewatering groundwater and stormwater, with no
chemicals added. Division guidance does not stipulate a toxicity test requirement for mine dewatering.
Page 5 of 12

Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply
with EPA's mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year), and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (^2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/1) will
receive an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case -by -case basis, depending if mercury is a
pollutant of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed
the WQBEL value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/1) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL
value of 47 ng/1
Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation: Mercury is not a pollutant of concern.
No monitoring is required.
Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation
within this permit: Based on public input, a Monthly effluent nutrient monitoring requirement for total
nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) was added to the Final permit. Although groundwater data does
not indicate this wastestream as a nutrient source, the receiving stream is classified as nutrient sensitive
water (NSW), and downstream Blounts Bay is listed as impaired for chlorophyll. Tar River TMDL 1994
Tar -Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan: https://www.deq.nc.gov/water-
guality/planning/tmdl/final-tmdls/tar-pam/tarpamtmdl-sec64-1994-bwpv2/download
Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: Narrative standards for
Turbidity and pH were evaluated.
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: NA.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H 0107( c) (2) (B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA.
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA.
7. Technology -Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Industrials (if not apmlicable. delete and skin to next Section)
Describe what this facility produces: Open pit aggregate mine extracting crushed limestone for use in the
construction industry. As a limestone mining operation this facility falls under SIC code 1422 for crushed
and broken limestone. 15A NCAC 213.0508 specifies monthly monitoring for turbidity, settleable matter,
TSS, and pH.
List the federal effluent limitations guideline (ELG) for this facility: 40 CFR 436.22.a.2 /BPT: Mineral
Mining and Processing Limitations, Subpart B — Crushed Stone, Mine dewatering.
Page 6 of 12

If the ELG is based on production or flow, document how the average production/flow value was
calculated: pH only, NA.
For ELG limits, document the calculations used to develop TBEL limits: No calculations were used to
develop TBEL limits; however, developing ELGs were based on the following narrative.
Federal ELGs found in 40 CFR 436.22 (For reference see Table A below) apply to the crushed stone
subcategory of mineral mining and processing. The only parameter of concern applicable in these
guidelines is pH, which is limited to a range of 6.0-9.0 standard units the same as State freshwater
standards. Both the Federal effluent guidelines and NC Water Quality Standards provide narrative for
a lower pH range, when pH in the receiving stream is lower:
15A NCAC 2B .0200 (14). pH: shall be between 6.0 and 9.0 except that swamp waters may have
a pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions.
40 CFR 436.22.c. In the case of a discharge into receiving waters for which the pH, if unaltered
by man's activities, is or would be less than 6.0 and water quality criteria in water quality
standards approved under the Act authorize such lower pH, the pH limitations for such discharge
may be adjusted downward to the pH water quality criterion for the receiving waters. In no case
shall a pH limitation outside the range 5.0 to 9.0 be permitted.
In other words, both the state narrative standard and federal ELG allows for a lower pH limit for a
discharge to swamp waters because of natural conditions. This allows for a lower pH without
obtaining an approved variance from the standard. Based on concerns expressed about pH in the
receiving waterbody, the pH range limit in the Final permit was modified from 6.0- 9.0 to 5.5-8.5
when this permit was originally issued on July 24, 2013.
Table A. TBEL Development per 40 CFR 436.22.a.2 /BPT.
Effluent
Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Maximum for any
1 day
Average of daily values for 30 consecutive
Days shall not exceed —
H
(1
i
' Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
If any limits are based on best professional judgement (BPJ), describe development: Yes. See table next
page.
Table B. TBEL Development per BPJ for ELG/TBEL, 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2) on a case -by -case with notes
for WQBEL considerations and stormwater ELGs.
Pollutant
BPJ Development Reference
Level of
Control
Daily
Maximum
Limit
Monthly
Average
Limit
40 CFR 429: Timber Products Processing, P -
Wood Furniture and Fixture Production with
BPT
< 0.2 mL/L a
Settleable
Water Wash Spray Booth(s) or With Laundry
(At all times)
a
Facilities
Solids
40 CFR 440.143.a: Ore Mining and Dressing,
BAT
0.2 mL/L a
Subpart M — Gold Placer Mine, Open -cut mine
(Instantaneous Max)
Page 7 of 12

Footnotes:
a. Settleable solids were limited to a monthly average of 0.1 mL/L and daily maximum of 0.2 mL/L,
consistent with the stormwater general permit [NCG020000].
In comparison the Quartz/Feldspar mines in Spruce Pine, NC report a method detection limit (MDL)
of <0.1 ml/L.
North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification Branch Approved Procedure for
the Analysis of Settleable Residue (Revised 05/01/2024) which references Standard Methods 2540 F
— 2020 gives discussion for an MDL of <0.1 mL/L.
Document any TBELs that are more stringent than WQBELs: NA.
Document any TBELs that are less stringent than previous permit: NA.
8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non -discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105( c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is
maintained and protected.
If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA.
9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(1) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): NO.
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA.
10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following
regulations and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2)
NPDES Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance,
Reduced Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not
considered effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti -
backsliding prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
Page 8 of 12

11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective
December 21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) electronically. While NPDES regulated facilities would initially be required to submit additional
NPDES reports electronically effective December 21, 2020, EPA extended this deadline from December
21, 2020, to December 21, 2025. The current compliance date, effective January 4, 2021, was extended as
a final regulation change published in the November 2, 2020 Federal Register. This permit contains the
requirements for electronic reporting, consistent with Federal requirements.
12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
Table C. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes Outfall 001 & 002 with Instream Monitoring U01,
DO1 & D02 as indicated.
Parameter
Current Permit
Proposed Change
Basis for Condition/Change
Flow a
DM 6.0 MGD (Outfall
No change
15A NCAC 213.0505
001) & 6.0 MGD
(Outfall 002) for a total
of 12.0 MGD
TSS
No Limit
No change
15A NCAC 02B .0508 for Mining
Total Iron
MA 1.0 mg/L
Monitor & Report
EPA approved removal of NC aquatic
DM Monitor Only
life standard for Iron and Manganese as
part of 2007-2016 Triennial review due
to high natural occurrence in NC surface
waters. Monitoring & Report
maintained, BPJ.
Turbidity
Not causing the
No change
WQBEL. State WQ narrative standard,
concentration in the
15A NCAC 213 .0200.
receiving waters to
exceed 50 NTU.
15A NCAC 02B .0508 for Mining.
Settleable Solids
MA 0.1 ml/L
No change
Settleable solids were limited to 0.1
DM 0.2 ml/L
ml/L, consistent with the stormwater
general permit NCG020000.
WQBEL. State WQ narrative standard,
15A NCAC 2B .0200 for Settleable
Solids.
15A NCAC 02B .0508 for Mining.
Total Nitrogen
Monitor Only
No change
WQBEL. Required individual TN/TP
nutrient limits per 2015 Tar -Pamlico
permitting strategy, and to comply with
NC chl-a WQS. 15A NCAC 2B.0200.
Downstream impairment for chlorophyll
in Pamlico River.
Total Phosphorus
Monitor Only
No change
WQBEL. Required individual TN/TP
nutrient limits per 2015 Tar -Pamlico
Page 9 of 12

permitting strategy and to comply with
NC chl-a WQS, 15A NCAC 213.0200.
Downstream impairment for chlorophyll
in Pamlico River.
PH
5.5 < pH < 8.5
No change
WQBEL. State WQ narrative standard,
15A NCAC 2B .0200 (14) and 40 CFR
Including Instream
436.22.c provide for a lower pH range,
Monitoring
when pH in the receiving stream is
lower. (See discussion in Section 7 of
this Fact Sheet).
15A NCAC 02B .0508 for Mining.
Salinity
Instream Only
No change
BPJ, based on public input, a Monthly
instream monitoring requirement was
added to the pervious permit for pH,
temperature, salinity, and turbidity.
Instream sampling at two downstream
locations will provide information on
any chemical trends following
commencement of quarry discharge.
Temperature
Instream Only
No change
WQBEL. State WQ narrative standard,
15A NCAC 213.0200
A. (4.) ELECTRONIC
No requirement
Add or update Electronic
In accordance with EPA Electronic
REPORTING -
Reporting Special
Reporting Rule 2015. G.S. 143-215.1(b)
DISCHARGE
Condition
MONITORING
REPORTS
B. (L) PUMPING
Included
Maintain
G.S. 143-215.1(b)
OPERATION AND
MONITORING PLAN
B. (2.) BEST
Included
Maintain
G.S. 143-215.1(b)
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES (BMPS)
B. (3.) CHEMICAL
Included
Maintain
G.S. 143-215, 143-215.1
TREATMENT
B. (4.) BENTHIC b
Included
Maintain
15A NCAC 02B .0200 et seq.,
MONITORING
NCGS 143-215.3 (a)(2), and
REQUIREMENT
NCGS 143-215.66
B. (5.) ADDITIONAL
once per permit cycle
once per permit cycle
40 CFR 122
EFFLUENT
MONITORING &
G.S. 143-215.1(b)
APPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS
MGD — Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA — Weekly Average, DM — Daily Max
Footnotes:
Page 10 of 12

a. Notes from 2013 Fact Sheet: The flow limit in the draft permit was based on the applicant's NPDES
application form and was presented as a Monthly Average of 9 MGD, split evenly between Outfalls
001/002. Based on public input, the effluent flow limit for the Final permit was modified to a Daily
Maximum limit of 12 MGD, split evenly between outfalls 001/002. The 12 MGD limit is consistent
with the daily maximum groundwater withdrawal rate incorporated into the draft groundwater
withdrawal permit and was used as an assumption in the water quality modeling efforts conducted by
the applicant. The daily maximum limit also sets an upper cap on discharge volume.
b. The Benthic Study Plan was received on January 15, 2018 (See Attachment El). On February 27,
2018, the renewal application was submitted with the benthic data. Ather review of the plan and
application data, the Water Sciences Section — Biological Assessment Branch found the dataset to be
acceptable Please see Attachment E2 comments from February 9, 2024.
There are several changes from the existing permit, including the following:
• Regulatory citations were added to the permit.
• The supplement to permit cover sheet (page 16) was updated to include the stream index number
and the HUC code.
• The facility classification, Grade I Physical Chemical Water Pollution Control System, was added
to the effluent and instream monitoring pages 3, 4 and 5 [See Conditions A. (1), A. (2), and A.
(3)]•
• Parameter codes were added to the effluent and instream monitoring tables on pages 3, 4, and 4
[See Conditions A. (1.), A. (2), and A. (3)].
• The monthly average limit of 1.0 mg/L for Total Iron was removed. The EPA approved removal
of Nort Carolina aquatic life standard for Iron and Manganese as part of 2007-2016 Triennial
review due to high natural occurrence in North Carolina surface waters.
• Instream Monitoring Requirements were reorganized into Condition A. (3.). This format clarifies
monitoring frequencies especially for Turbidity at each of the instream sampling locations.
Sampling Locations were assigned the following three -digit outfall numbers for electronic
reporting purposes:
U01 — Upstream near the intersection of Blounts Creek and Chuck Road.
DO 1 — Downstream after the convergence of the flows from the two outfalls in Blounts
Creek, from the access location off of Harper Road.
D02 — Downstream in Blounts Creek at the NC-33 bridge crossing.
Electronic reporting of discharge monitoring reports (eDMR) was added as Condition A. (4).
Permit conditions for the pumping operation and monitoring plan, best management practices,
chemical treatment, and benthic monitoring requirements were reorganized into Section B — Special
Conditions.
The permit map was updated.
13. Public Notice Schedule:
Permit to Public Notice: xx/xx/xxxx
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the
Director within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party fling such request and the
reasons why a hearing is warranted.
Page 11 of 12

14. NPDES Division Contact
If you have any questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please
contact Derek Denard at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].
15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):
Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No):
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:
16. Fact Sheet Attachments & Laserfiche Links (if applicable):
A. NC0089168_Renewal (Application)_20180227
https:Hedocs.deq.nc. gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=638636
B. Permit Rating Sheets
1. NC0089168_Facility Rating_20110922
https:Hedocs.deq.nc. gov/WaterResources/DocView. aspx?dbid=0&id=3429070
2. NCO089168 Worksheet-NPDES-PermitRating-Sheet-Majors-EPA-1990-Febl3-v2_4p
C. NC0089168_NC_Supreme_Court_Decision_20230901
httl2s:Hedocs.deq.nc. gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=3318734
D. NC Integrated Report 2022 & NC 303(d) list 2022
1. Blounts Creek_NCIntegratedReport2022 1005
2. Blounts Bay_NC303d2022 122
3. Pamlico River_ NO03d2022 110
E. Benthic Monitoring Plan Review
1. NC0089168_Benthic Monitoring Plan _20180115
https:Hedocs.deg.nc. gov/WaterResources/DocView. aspx?dbid=0&id=622198
2. Benthic Study Review Eric Fleek 20240209_4p
Page 12 of 12

ATTACHMENT B2
NCO089168 Works heet-N PDES-PermitRating-Sheet-M aj ors -EPA- 1 990-Feb 1 3-v2_4 pages

NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet
NPDES No.: NCO089168
Facility Name:
Marin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Vanceboro Quarry
City:Vanceboro, NC
Receiving water: Blounts Creek [Stream Index 129-9-1-(1)] [HUC: 030201040106]
Reach Number:
✓❑Regular Addition
❑Discretionary Addition
❑Score change, but no
status change
❑Deletion
Is this facility a steam electric power plant (SIC=4911) Is this permit for a municipal separate storm sewer
with one or more of the following characteristics? serving a population greater than 100,000?
1. Power output 500 MW or greater (not using a cooling pond/lake) ❑ YES; score is 700 (stop here)
2. A nuclear power plant
3. Cooling water discharge greater than 25% of the receiving stream's 7Q10 flow rate ✓❑ NO (continue)
❑ YES; score is 600 (stop here) ✓❑ NO (continue)
FACTOR 1:Toxic Pollutant Potential
1422
1422
PCs SIC Code:
Primary SIC Code:
14
Other SIC Codes:
0
Industrial Subcategory Code:
(Code 000 if no subcategory)
Determine the Toxicity potential from
Appendix A. (Be sure to use the TOTAL toxicity potential column and check one)
Toxicity Group Code Points
Toxicity Group
Code
Points
Toxicity Group
Code
Points
No process
❑ 0 0
❑ 3.
B.
3
4
15
20
7
8.
7
8
35
40
waste streams
✓❑ 1. 1 5
5.
5
25
9.
9
45
❑2. 2 10
6.
❑
6
30
10.
10
50
Code Number Checked:
1
Total Points Factor 1:
rJ
FACTOR 2: Flow/Stream Flow Volume (Complete either Section A or Section B; check only one)
Section A - Wastewater Flow Only Considered
Section B - Wastewater and Stream Flow Considered
Wastewater type
Code
Points
Wastewater type Percent of Instream
(See Instructions)
(See Instructions) Wastewater Concen-
Type I: Flow < 5 MGD
11
0
tration at Receiving
Flow 5 to 10 MGD
12
10
Stream Low Flow Code Points
Flow>10 to 50 MGD
13
20
Flow> 50 MGD
14
30
Type 1/III: <10% 41 0
>10% to <50% 42 10
Type II: Flow<1 MGD
21
10
>50% 43 20
Flow 1 to 5 MGD
22
20
Flow >5 to 10 MGD
23
30
Type II <10% 51 0
Flow>10 MGD
✓ 24
50
>10% to <50% 52 20
>50% ❑ 53 30
Type III: Flow <1 MGD
31
0
Type 11 is defined as: process wastewaters include
Flow 1 to 5 MGD
32
10
wastewaters resulting from most manufacturing processes,
Flow >5 to 10 MGD
33
20
contact cooling water, and contaminated surface run-off.
Flow >MGD
34
30
Code Checked from Section A or B: 24
Total Points Factor 2: 50
1

NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet
FACTOR 3: Conventional Pollutants NPDES No.: NCO089168
(only when limited by the permit)
A. Oxygen Demanding Pollutants (check one) ❑BOD ❑COD❑OTHER:
Code
Permit Limits (check one) <100lbs/day 1
100 to 1000 Ibs/day 2
>1000 to 3000 Ibs/day 3
>3000 Ibs/day 4
Points
0
5
15
20
Code Checked: _
Points Scored: O
B. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) TSS is not limited.
Code Points
Permit Limits (check one) <100 Ibs/day 1 0
100 to 1000 Ibs/day 2 5
>1000 to 5000 Ibs/day 3 15
❑ >5000lbs/day 4 20
Code Checked:
Points Scored: O
C. Nitrogen Pollutants (check one) ❑ Ammonia ❑ OTHER: Total Nitrogen
Nitrogen Equivalent Code Points
TN is not limited.
Permit Limits (check one) <300 Ibs/day 1 0
300 to 1000 Ibs/day 2 5
>1000 to 3000 Ibs/day 3 15
>3000lbs/day 4 20
Code Checked: 1
Points Scored: O
Total Points Factor 3: L—
FACTOR 4: Public Health Impact
Is there a public drinking water supply located within 50 miles downstream of the effluent discharge (this includes any body of
water to which the receiving water is a tributary)? A public drinking water supply may include infiltration galleries, or other
methods of conveyance that ultimately get water from the above referenced supply.
❑ YES (if yes, check toxicity potential number below)
WINO (if no, go to Factor 5)
Determine the human health toxicity potential from Appendix A.
Use the same SIC Code and subcategory reference as in
Factor 1. (Be sure to use the human health toxicity group column and check one below)
Toxicity Group Code Points Toxicity Group
Code Points
Toxicity Group
Code Points
3.
3 0
7.
7 15
process
❑No
waste streams 0 0
4.
4 0
8.
8 20
❑1. 1 0
5.
5 5
9.
9 25
❑2. 2 0
6.
6 10
10.
10 30
Code Number Checked:
Total Points Factor 4:
2

NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet
FACTOR 5: Water Quality Factors NPIJES No.: NCO089168
A. Is (or will) one or more of the effluent discharge limits based on water quality factors of the receiving stream (rather than
technology -based federal effluent guidelines, or technology -based state effluent guidelines), or has a wasteload allocation
been assigned to the discharge?
Code Points
YES 1 10 pH, Turbidity, and Settable Solids have narrative WQ Standards, but the
✓�NO 2 0 limits are not based on water quality conditions in the receiving stream.
B. Is the receiving water in compliance with applicable water quality standards for pollutants that are water quality limited in the
permit?
Code Points
✓YES 1 0 Currently, Blounts Creek is not 303(d) listed.
❑ NO 2 5
c. Does the effluent discharged from this facility exhibit the reasonable potential to violate water quality standards due to whole
effluent toxicity?
Code Points
YES 1 10
VINO 2 0
FACTOR 6: Proximity to Near Coastal Waters
A. Base Score: Enter flow code here (from Factor 2): 24
Check appropriate facility HPRI Code (from PCs):
HPRI# Code HPRI Score
1 1 20
2 2 0
✓ 3 3 30
4 4 0
5 5 20
HPRI Code Checked:
Code Number Checked: A. 2 B. 1 C. 2
Total Points Factor 5 A. 0 +g 0 +C. 0 = 0
Enter the multiplication factor that corresponds
to the flow code: 1.00
Flow code
Multiplication Factor
11, 31, or41
0.00
12, 32, or 42
0.05
13, 33, or 43
0.10
14 or 34
0.15
21 or 51
0.10
22 or 52
0.30
23 or 53
0.60
24
1.00
Base Score (HPRI Score) 30 x (Multiplication Factor) 1.00 = 30 (Total Points)
B. Additional Points — NEP Program c. Additional Points — Great Lakes Area of Concern
For a facility that has an HPRI code of 3, does the facility For a facility that has an HPRI code of 5, does the facility
discharge to one of the estuaries enrolled in the National discharge any of the pollutants of concern into one of the
Estuary Protection (NEP) program (see instructions) or Great Lakes' 31 areas of concern (see instructions)?
the Chesapeake Bay?
Code Points Code Points
✓YES 1 10 YES 1 10
FINO 2 0 ❑ NO 2 0
Blounts Creek discharges to Herring Run, Blounts Code Number Checked: A. B. C.
Bay, and thence to the Pamlico River. The Pamlico
estuary is listed in NEP program. Total Points Factor 6 A. 30 +g, 10 +c. 0 = 40
3

Score Summary
Factor
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet
Description
Total Points
Toxic Pollutant Potential
5
Flow/Streamflow Volume
50
Conventional Pollutants
0
Public Health Impacts
0
Water Quality Factors
0
Proximity to Near Coastal Waters
40
NPDES No.: NCO089168
TOTAL (Factors 1 through 6) 95
S1. Is the total score equal to or greater than 80? ❑ YES (Facility is a major) ✓❑ NO
S2. If the answer to the above question is no, would you like this facility to be discretionary major?
✓❑ NO
❑ YES (Add 500 points to the above score and provide reason below:
Reason:
NEW SCORE: 95
OLD SCORE: 100
Reset Form
Derek Denard
Permit Reviewer's Name
919) 707-3618
Phone Number
05/28/2024
Date
4

ATTACHMENT DI
Integrated Report 2022 — Blounts Creek NCIntegratedReport2022 page 1005

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT
Pamlico Tar -Pamlico River Basin
AU Name
AU Number Classification
AU LengthArea AU Units
AU ID Description
Chocowinity Bay
29-6-(5) SB;NSW
503.3 S Acres
9977 From a line across the Bay from the
upstream mouth of Cedar Creek to the upstream
mouth of Silas
Creek to Pamlico River
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER
IR CATEGORY
CRITERIA STATUS
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC)
4i
Exceeding Criteria
Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP)
1
Meeting Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen (5 mg/I, AL, SW)
1
Meeting Criteria
pH (6.8 su, AL, SW)
1
Meeting Criteria
Turbidity (25 NTU, AL, FW acres & SW)
1
Meeting Criteria
pH (8.5, AL, SW)
3a
Data Inconclusive
Total Nitrogen
4t
Exceeding Criteria
Total Phosporus
4t
Exceeding Criteria
Blounts Bay (inside a line from Hill Point to Mauls 29-9
Point) (Pamlico Blounts Bay Segment)
10098 From source to Pamlico River
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER
Copper (3 µg/I, AL, SW)
Enterrococcus (GM 35 5 in 30, REC, SW)
SB;NSW 2,101.2 S Acres
IR CATEGORY
5
Blounts Creek 29-9-1-(1) C;Sw,NSW
10101 From source to Herring Run
2022 Water Quality Assessments
PARAMETER
Benthos (Nar, AL, FW)
Tar -Pamlico River Basin
1
IR CATEGORY
3a
03020105
CRITERIA STATUS
Exceeding Criteria
Meeting Criteria
5.3 FW Miles
CRITERIA STATUS
Data Inconclusive
Pamlico Sound
6/7/2022 NC 2022 INTEGRATED REPORT -Category 5 Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 1005 of 1346

ATTACHMENT D2
NC 303(d) list 2022 — Blounts Bay_NC303d2022 page 122

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 303(D) LIST
Pamlico Tar -Pamlico River Basin
AU Name AU Number Classification
AU ID Description
Blounts Bay (inside a line from Hill Point to Mauls 29-9
Point) (Pamlico Blounts Bay Segment)
10098 From source to Pamlico River
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Copper (3 jig/I, AL, SW) 5 Exceeding Criteria
SB;NSW
AU_LengthArea AU —Units
2,101.2 S Acres
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Legacy Category 5 Total Metals 2008
Assessment
Tar -Pamlico River Basin 03020105 Pamlico Sound
PAMLICO RIVER 29-(27) SA;HQW,NSW 33,801.3 S Acres
9534 From a line across Pamlico River from Cousin Point to Hickory Point to a line across Pamlico River from
Roos Point to Persimmon Tree Point
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC) 5 Exceeding Criteria LVLL
PAMLICO RIVER AND PAMLICO SOUND 29-(40.5)e2 SA;HQW
30.9 S Acres
14089 DEH closed areas adjacent to Ocracoke
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Shellfish Growing Area Status (Fecal, SH, SA) 5 Exceeding Criteria Prohibited Shellfish Growing Area 2006
Long Creek 29-42-1-1 SA;HQW
9905 From source to Germantown Bav
53.6 S Acres
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY
CRITERIA STATUS
REASON FOR RATING
303D YEAR
Shellfish Growing Area Status (Fecal, SH, SA) 5
Exceeding Criteria
Prohibited Shellfish Growing Area
2006
Midgette Creek
29-42-1-2
SA;HQW
8.4 S Acres
9906 From source to Germantown Bay
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY
CRITERIA STATUS
REASON FOR RATING
303D YEAR
Shellfish Growing Area Status (Fecal, SH, SA) 5
Exceeding Criteria
Restricted Shellfish Growing Area
2006
Germantown Bay 29-42-1a SA;HQW 179.8 S Acres
9904 From source to a line starting at mouth of Long Creek extending across Bay to a point 77 meters south of
Midgette Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS
Shellfish Growing Area Status (Fecal, SH, SA) 5 Exceeding Criteria
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Prohibited Shellfish Growing Area 2006
6/7/2022 NC 2022 303d List- Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 122 of 192

ATTACHMENT D3
NC 303(d) list 2022 — Pamlico River_NC303d2022 page 110

NORTH CAROLINA 2022 303(D) LIST
Pamlico Tar -Pamlico River Basin
AU Name
AU ID Description
PAMLICO RIVER (Upper Pamlico Segment)
12967 Area adjacent to recmon site C121
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY
Copper (3 µg/I, AL, SW) 5
AU Number Classification
29-(5)a1
CRITERIA STATUS
Exceeding Criteria
SB;NSW
AU_LengthArea AU —Units
1.0 S Acres
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Legacy Category 5 Total Metals 2008
Assessment
PAMLICO RIVER (Pamlico Blounts Bay Segment) 29-(5)b1 SB;NSW 4,255.0 S Acres
9541 From a line 0.65 miles downstream of Chocowinity Bay to a line at the east mouth of Blounts Bay
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
pH (8.5, AL, SW) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2020
Copper (3 µg/I, AL, SW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Legacy Category 5 Total Metals 2008
Assessment
PAMLICO RIVER (Pamlico Bath Segment) 29-(5)b2 SB;NSW 8,539.0 S Acres
12957 From east mouth of Blounts Bay to west mouth of Durham Creek
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Copper (3 µg/I, AL, SW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Legacy Category 5 Total Metals 2008
Assessment
PAMLICO RIVER(Pamlico Middle Segment) 29-(5)b3 SB;NSW 10,194.8 S Acres
12958 From west mouth of Durham Creek to a line from Huddy Creek (south shore) to Saint Claire Creek (north
shore)
PARAMETER
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC)
Copper (3 µg/I, AL, SW)
IR CATEGORY
5
5
CRITERIA STATUS
Exceeding Criteria
Exceeding Criteria
REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Legacy Category 5 Total Metals
Assessment
Broad Creek 29-10-(3) SB;NSW
9562 From a point 1.0 mile above Beaufort County SR 1325 to Pamlico River
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING
Copper (3 µg/I, AL, SW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Legacy Category 5 Total Metals
Assessment
2008
368.2 S Acres
303D YEAR
2008
Bath Creek 29-19-(5.5) SB;NSW 861.4 S Acres
9583 From a line across Bath Creek from Long Point to Pamlico River
PARAMETER IR CATEGORY CRITERIA STATUS REASON FOR RATING 303D YEAR
Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC) 5 Exceeding Criteria 2016
Copper (3 µg/I, AL, SW) 5 Exceeding Criteria Legacy Category 5 Total Metals 2008
Assessment
6/7/2022 NC 2022 303d List- Approved by EPA 4/30/2022 Page 110 of 192

ATTACHMENT E2
Benthic Monitoring Plan Review — Benthic Study Review —Eric Fleek_20240209_4p

5/23/24, 3:24 PM
Mail - Denard, Derek - Outlook
RE: Benthic Study for Martin Marietta NPDES NCO089168
Fleek, Eric <[e-mail]>
Fri 2/9/2024 8:48 AM
To:Denard, Derek <[e-mail]>
The calculated metrics from the 2/1/2018 sampling of the 4 study sites by their consultant are generally
comparable to our calculated metrics at those locations.
However, we sampled on 5/1/2012 and 5/2/2012.
Since the discharge has not yet started, the modest variations present in our data relative to theirs is likely the
result of seasonal effects.
In short, some organisms present in May will be diapausing in the sediment as eggs, and therefore would not be
collected in February.
Similarly, there are other organisms that will be present in February as aquatic larvae, but which will be absent (as
larvae) in May.
Looking over the taxa lists (ours and theirs), that seasonal component seems to be present, otherwise the taxa
identified by the consultant are reasonable for these waterbodies and for this part of the State.
In short, their dataset is acceptable, and this is not surprising since Larry Eaton worked in this group for over 30
years (and has passed the Biological Certification thresholds on two separate occasions).
As for the monitoring requirement in A (6): that language seems reasonable to me and I would be happy to look
over any subsequent benthic monitoring plans.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Denard, Derek <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 8:18 AM
To: Fleek, Eric <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dowden, Doug <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Benthic Study for Martin Marietta NPDES NCO089168
Thank you, Eric!
Derek C. Denard
Environmental Program Consultant, Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADdhYTVmZDBILTE5ZDctNG15MC04ZjliLWU4MjVhZTBhMmJkMgAQANStpLi%2BzGVGjkOGwuFF6M4%3D 1/4

5/23/24, 3:24 PM Mail - Denard, Derek - Outlook
ID, E :�
Department of Enriroamontal Duabty
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Fleek, Eric <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 5:14 PM
To: Denard, Derek <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dowden, Doug <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J <Michael.Montebello.@ eq.nc.gov>
Subject: Re: Benthic Study for Martin Marietta NPDES NCO089168
Oh, I know this case.
I did the initial sampling in 2012, wrote the subsequent memo, was deposed over it, then went on the stand
before OAH to answer for it all.
Anyway, I am in the field most of this week, so it may not be until late this week or early next week before I can
get you comments.
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Denard, Derek <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 3:31 PM
To: Fleek, Eric <[e-mail]>
Cc: Dowden, Doug <[e-mail]>; Montebello, Michael J <[e-mail]>
Subject: Benthic Study for Martin Marietta NPDES NCO089168
Eric,
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADdhYTVmZDBILTE5ZDctNG15MC04ZjliLWU4MjVhZTBhMmJkMgAQANStpLi%2BzGVGjkOGwuFF6M4%3D 2/4

5/23/24, 3:24 PM
Mail - Denard, Derek - Outlook
We need assistance reviewing a benthic study for Martin Marietta's Vanceboro Quarry NPDES
NC0089168. This permit was issued with a benthic study condition in 2013. Please see the
attached permit for Condition A.(6.) Benthic Monitoring Requirement on pages 5 and 6.
A little back ground for this permit: The permit was challenged by Sound Rivers Inc. through the
court system up to the NC Supreme Court . The court affirmed the permit in September 2023. In
the mean time, the permittee submitted a Benthic Monitoring Plan in January 2018 followed by
a renewal application in February 2018. Please see the attachments for the monitoring plan
and renewal application. The renewal application pages include the benthic data that needs to
be reviewed for the permit renewal.
Please note that the facility has not discharged since the permit was issued in 2013 because of
the court case. Therefore, the benthic data included in the renewal application was not taken
while the facility was actively discharging to the LIT to Blounts Creek.
We need your input on the data submitted and the permit condition going forward for this permit
renewal. If you need any assistance or information, please let me know. If you want to discuss, I
can set up a Teams meeting for us.
Thanks,
Derek C. Denard
Environmental Program Consultant, Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Office: [phone]
[e-mail]
ID
Department of EnvUonmental oualdy
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North
Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADdhYTVmZDBILTE5ZDctNG15MC04ZjliLWU4MjVhZTBhMmJkMgAQANStpLi%2BzGVGjkOGwuFF6M4°/o3D 3/4

5/23/24, 3:24 PM
Mail - Denard, Derek - Outlook
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an
authorized state official.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADdhYTVmZDBILTE5ZDctNG15MC04ZjliLWU4MjVhZTBhMmJkMgAQANStpLi%2BzGVGjkOGwuFF6M4%3D 4/4