090100_DV-2021-0132 Response_20211221

(5) Date: 12-14-21
12/14/21
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF Bladen
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 1N THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEC 21 2021
(2) Oak Springs Farm LLC
Michael Teachey
PETITIONER,
v.
(3) Department of Environmental Quality RESPONDENT
William F Lane, General Counsel
DEQ, 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27688-1601
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PETITION
FOR A
CONTESTED CASE HEARING
I hereby ask for a contested case hearing as provided for by North Carolina General Statute § 150B-23 because the Respondent has:
(Briefly state facts showing how you believe you have been harmed by the State agency or board.)
The DEQ has proposed a fine to Oak Springs Farm LLC as a result of a scheduled audit. The proposed fines are inflated beyond good reason
and the documented items in the DEQ report are not accurate. It is concerning that a governing body has documented narratives that are not true and
do not reflect the true picture of the event that occurred on this day.
(If more space is needed, attach additional pages.)
(4) Because of these facts, the State agency or board has: (check at least one from each column)
deprived me : f property;
X ordered me to pay a fine or civil penalty; or exceeded its authority or jurisdiction;
X
otherwise substantially prejudiced my rights; AND actedfailederroneously; to
rouse proper procedure;
acted arbitrarily or capriciously; or
failed to act as required by law or rule.
(6) Your phone number: [ 910 ) 379 8822
Ralei g''h NC 27605
(city) (state) (zip)
(7) Print your full address: 1122 Oberlin Rd
(street address/p.o. box)
(8) Print your name: Michael Teachev
(9Your signature:
board to determine the name of the person to be served.
You must mail or deliver a COPY of this Petition to the State agency or board named on line (3) of this form. You should contact the agency or
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 certify that this Petition has been served on the State agency or board named below by depositing a copy of it with the United States Postal Service
with sufficient postage affixed OR by delivering it to the named agency or board:
(10) William F Lane
(name of person served)
(12) DEQ — 1601 Mail Service Center
(street address/p.o. box)
(13) This the 14th day of December 2021
i`
.aule 75e.a,c-Ly-
H-06 (11/99)
Raleigh
(city)
your signature)
(11) Department of Environmental Quality
(State agency or board listed on line 3)
NC 27699-1601
(state) (zip code)

KAIZEN FARMS
December 13th, 2021
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Attention Mr. Jeff Poupart:
Subject: In response to the Assessment of Civil Penalties for Violations
Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2T .0105(e)(2)
Oak Springs Sow Farm LLC (#090100)
Bladen County
Enforcement File No. DV-2021-0132
Mr. Jeff Poupart,
Please let this letter serve as our official response to the Assessment of Civil Penalties letter we received
on December the 1st from your office. We will be including this letter as a request for a "Petition for an
administrative hearing" of the Assessment of Civil Penalties against Oak Springs Sow Farm, LLC.
It is apparent that there is a huge disparity in regards to the facts versus the items the state has chosen
to document as reasons for civil penalty against Oak Springs Sow Farm, LLC.
Please let me explain.
I. $4,000 assessment for making an outlet to the waters of the state without permit.
a. The fine for this item is exaggerated and inflated without reason. How do you come up
with the said amount? We cleaned this item up using one 5-gallon bucket. It took longer
to go get the bucket than it did to clean up. This assessment is $1000/gallon of water
removed from the area of concern which is excessive and we are unsure of the basis of
such penalty. We sincerely ask that this penalty be dismissed due to such a small volume
of water being removed from the area of focus.

II. $1,000 assessment for failing to properly maintain the waste collection, treatment, and storage
facilities at all times.
a. This fine is unreasonable and for one to think that anything can function correctly all the
time is a good example that there is a large misunderstanding in the regional and state
offices. The valve in question was working properly during the last pumping event prior
to the inspection by the State. We had no prior knowledge or notice that it was not
functioning properly until it was observed the morning of the inspection. The valve was
immediately repaired and made better the instant we became aware it was not
functioning properly. However, you do not always know that something needs repairing
until you get an indication that it needs to be done.
III. $1,000 assessment for failure of the OIC or a person under the supervision of an OIC to inspect
application equipment.
a. This assessment should be removed and disregarded completely. The OIC had been on
site within 24 hours and the person under the supervision of the OIC in charge had been
on site the morning of the inspection. We do not see how the state can assess a civil
penalty due to this item because it simply is not accurate and for it to be documented on
an official letter from the state does not sit well from our view. This assessment is based
on inaccurate assumptions and statements in the regional and state office's
documentation.
IV. $750 assessment for failing to harvest and remove crop from the spray fields irrigated with swine
waste.
a. There had been a harvest in early spring. There had been consistent rain events that kept
us from making another pass for a second harvest. It is unreasonable to think the 2nd
harvest could have been done any sooner knowing all the facts in the matter. It is much
easier to second guess our actions after the fact, but we were using good sound judgment
in not harvesting the crop while it was too wet to harvest the crop.
b. The inspector on the day of May 20th made the statement that this was "Regrowth" of
which we have since harvested according to the requirements of the state. The state
should acknowledge that there are times that uncontrollable natural events might impact
the timing of such event.
V. $500 assessment for failing to report by telephone to the appropriate regional office as soon as
possible within 24 hours following the knowledge of a failed component of the waste
management system.
a. The basis for this assessment is unrealistic and unfair. We discovered the faulty item
during the inspection by the state therefore the State knew about it the instant we

discovered it and knew about it. Prior to your inspection the valve under scrutiny was
functioning properly. It is unfair to fine an operator for not reporting something that the
operator is unaware of. It is unreasonable to expect us to report an event before we are
aware of it. It is obvious that the state nor regional office does not understand this
occurrence. We were on site within the previous 24 hours of the scheduled inspection
and did not observe any issue that would put us in violation with the regional or state
offices. No one in their right mind would ignore a problem like this with an inspection
scheduled shortly thereafter.
Summary:
Kaizen takes great pride in the maintenance and care of its facilities and land. We feel that if you read our
responses closely you will see that there were no violations that should result in a Civil Penalty.
We thank you in advance for your time and consideration and look forward to continuing to work closely
with you in the future.
Respectfully,
Director of Operations
910-379-8822 Mobile
[e-mail]

p••$F.21..(0-E;
IGDMITIT:Trem
— J
>- 2
w
<
u 1-`
v( Ln
1.1.1 0
1— Z
- 0-
- <
2 0
CI
z
_J-
00
0
rsl
ri
7020 0640 0002 2979 1142
Ln
1.0
c,/
z
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
' :CV
1.7 •
•