WQ0000701_PC-064_20010323

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and. Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secreta
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
DENR-
MR LAWRENCE R: SAMPSON
TYSON FOODS, INC
PO BOX 88
WILKESBORO NC 28697
Dear Mr. Sampson:
RECEIVED
APR 25 2006
FAYETIEVILLE REGIONAE)ICE
May 4, 2001
SUBJECT:
Ir',1;Ar
4•
r
E ;_
JUL 2 6 2022
DEQ!p R'\. P§ .1,..
OVETTEVILLE RE:6o g C
CE
Acknowledgment Receipt Letter
Case # PC 00-064
Iredell County
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your check No. 0001377459 in the amount
of 14,429.64, received from the Tyson Foods, Inc. on May 4; 2001.
This payment satisfies in full the civil assessment in the amount of $14,429.64
levied against Tysons Foods, Inc: and this enforcement case has been closed. Payment of
these penalties in no way precludes further action by this Division for future violations:
cc:
If you have any questions: please call Brian Wrenn at [phone] ext. 529.
Sincerely,
z_
Jeff Poupart, Supervisor
Non -Discharge 'Compliance & Enforcement
Mooresville Regional Office
Enforcement/Compliance Files PC 00-064
Central Files
1617 Mail Service Center, ,Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Telephone [phone]
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Gov
William G. Ross Jr., Sf
Kerr T. Stevens, Direct
ernor RECEIVED
cretarrPR 2 5 2006
or
OENR-FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
March 23, 2001
Mr. Lawrence R. Sampson, Jr.
Tyson Foods, Inc.
PO Box 88
Wilkesboro; North Carolina. 28697
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Sampson:
NC
07 ENVIRONMEM'
"s:.. REf.30L RCE$
r{s..•�„
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MAR 2 7 2001
CERTIFIED MATT WATER QUALITY SEC E
'
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Assessment of Civil. Penalties for
Violations of Permit No.
WQ0000701.
Iredell County
File No. PC 00-064
T 's-i—afe t nsmits—nptice of a civil penalty assessed against Tyson Foods; Inc. in the
amo t of $14,429.64 includes $429:64 in investigative costs. Attached is a copy of the
assessmen • o ment explaining this penalty.
This action was taken under the authority vested in me by delegation provided by the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Any continuing violation(s)
may be the subject of a new enforcement action, including an additional penalty.
Within thirty days of receipt of this notice, you must do one of the following:
1. Submit payment of the penalty:
Payment should be made directly to the order of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (do not include waiver form).
Payment of the penalty will not foreclose further enforcement action for
any continuing or new violation(s).
Mailing Address:
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
State Courier #52-01-01
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled / 10% post -consumer paper
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us
Location:
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Please submit payment to the attention of:
Mr. Brian Wrenn
NCDENR
DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center .
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
•f .fir'.,
OR
Submit,a written request for remission or mitigation including a detailed
justification for such request:
A request for remission or mitigation is limited to consideration of the
reasonableness of the amount of the penalty and is not the proper procedure for
contestingthe accuracy of any of the statements contained in the assessment
letter. Because a remission request forecloses the option of an administrative
hearing, such a request must be accompanied by a waiver of your right to an
administrative hearing and a stipulation that there are no factual or legal issues in
dispute. You must execute and return to this office the attached waiverand
stipulation form and a detailed statement which you believe establishes whether:
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in G.S. 143B-282.1(b)
were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner;
(b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting
from the violation;
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident;
(d) the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining
necessary remedial actions.
Please submit this information to the attention of:
Mr. Brian Wrenn
NCDENR
DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
OR'
3. Submit a written request for an administrative hearing:
If you wish to contest any portion of the civil penalty assessment, you must '
request an administrative hearing. This request must be in the form of a written
petition to the Office of Administrative Hearings and must conform to Chapter
150B of the North Carolina General Statutes. You must file your original petition •
with the:

Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714
AND
Mail or hand -deliver a Copy of the petition. to:
Mr. Dan McLawhorn
NCDENR
Office of General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, -NC 27699-1601
Failure to.exercise one of the options above within thirty days, as evidenced by a date
stamp (not a. postmark) indicating when we received your response, will result in this matter
being referred to the Attorney General's Office with a request to initiate a civil action to collect
the penalty. Please be advised that additional assessments may be levied for future violations
which occur after the review period of this assessment.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Brian Wrenn at [phone], ext. 529 or.
Mr. Jeff Poupart at [phone], ext. 527.
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens
ATTACHMENTS.
cc: Rex Gleason, Mooresville Water Quality Regional Supervisor w/ attachments
Ellen Huffman, MRO w/ attachments
Larry Coble, Winston-SalemWater Quality Regional Supervisor w/ attachments
Ab Braddy, WSRO w/ attachments
File # PC 00-064 w/ attachments .
Central Files ,w/ attachments -
Ernie Seneca, Public Information Officer w/ attachments

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF IREDELL
IN THE MATTER OF
TYSON FOODS, INC.
FOR VIOLATIONS OF
NON -DISCHARGE PERMIT
WQ0000701
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
File No. PC 00-064
FINDINGS AND DECISION -
AND ASSESSMENT OF
CIVIL PENALTIES
Acting pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, I, Kerr T. Stevens, Director of the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), make the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Tyson Foods, Inc.. is a foreign corporation (organized and incorporated outside of
the State of North Carolina) doing business in the. State of North Carolina.
B. Tyson Foods, Inc. owns and operates a land application of wastewater residuals
system located in Iredell County with application fields off of NCSR 1979 in
Rowan County.
C. Tyson Foods, Inc. was issued Non Discharge Permit Number WQ0000701 on
March 31, 1998, effective March 31, 1998, with an expiration date of April 30,
2000. Although the issued permit was expired at the time of the ' violations, a
permit renewal/modification application was in-house at that time. DWQ allowed
the facility to continue operation under the expired permit.
D. Permit Condition I. 7. of the issued permit states that a copy of the issued permit
shall be maintained at the land application site when residuals are being applied
during the life of this permit. A spill prevention and control plan shall be
maintained in all residuals transport and application vehicles.
E. PermitCondition I. 8. of the issued permit states that specific residual application
area boundaries shall be • clearly marked on each site prior to and during
application.

F. Permit Condition II. 12. of the issued permit states that adequate provisions shall
be taken to prevent wind erosion and surface runoff from conveying pollutants
from the residuals application area onto the adjacent property or into any surface
waters.
G. Permit Condition II. 15. of the issued permit states that residuals shall not be
applied at rates greater than agronomic rates, unless authorized by the Division.
H Permit Condition III. 2. of the issued permit states that proper records shall be
maintained by the Permittee tracking all application activities. These records shall
include, but are not limited to the following information:
i. annual and . cumulative totals of dry tons/acre of residuals, annual and
cumulative pounds/acre of each heavy metal, annual pounds/acre of plant
available 'nitrogen (PAN)., and annual pounds/acre of phosphorous applied
to each field.
On May 25, 2000, DWQ staff from the Mooresville Regional Office inspected the
application fields listed as. Dr. Richard Adams farm in the issued permit. The
following was observed:
1) No land application permit was on site during application activities, and no
spill control plans were found in the transport or application vehicles.
2) No boundary markers were observed on the application fields during
application activities.
3) Ponding and runoff of residual material' were observed at several application
sites. Residual material was observed running onto adjacent property.
4) Residual material was applied to a corn crop outside of the active growing
season on the Dr. -Richard Adams farm, field M.
5) Inadequate records were kept for PAN loading rates.
J. The costs to. the State of the enforcement procedures in this matter totaled
$429.64.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a "person" within the meaning of G.S. 143-215.6A pursuant ,
to G.S. 143-212(4).
B. A permit for a land application of wastewater residuals system is required by G.S.
143-215.1.
C. The effluent limitations and reporting requirements contained in the subject
permit are terms, conditions, or requirements of said permit.

D. Tyson Foods, Inc. violated Permit Condition I. 7. by failing to maintain copies of
the spill control plan and the land application permit in the transport and
application vehicles.
E. Tyson Foods, Inc. violated Permit Condition I. 8. by failing to clearly mark the
boundaries on the application site.
F. Tyson Foods, Inc. violated Permit Condition if 12. by failing to prevent surface
runoff from the application area onto adjacent property.
G. Tyson Foods; Inc. violated Permit Condition II. 15. by applying residuals to a corn
crop outside of the active growing season.
H. Tyson Foods, Inc. violated Permit Condition III. 2. i. by failing to maintain proper
records of PAN loading rates.
Tyson Foods, Inc. may be assessed civil penalties pursuant to G.S. 143-
215.6A(a)(2) which provides that acivil penalty of not more than ten thousand.
dollars ($10,000.00) per violation may be assessed against a person who violates
or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a
permit required by G.S. 143-215.1.
J. The State's enforcement costs in this matter may be assessed against Tyson Foods,
Inc. pursuant to G.S. 143-215.3(a)(9) and G.S. 143B-282:1(b)(8).
K. The Director, Division of Water Quality, pursuant to delegation provided by the
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, has the
authority to assess civil penalties in this matter.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I make the following:
III. DECISION:
\ Tyson Foods, Inc." is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$ \I000
for violating Permit Condition I. 7. of Permit Number
WQ0000701 by failing to maintain copies of the spill control
plan and the ,land application permit in the transport and
application vehicles.
for violating Permit Condition I. 8. of Permit Number
WQ0000701 by failing to clearly mark the boundaries on the
application site.

$ '}Soo
$ 4
0
for violating Permit Condition H. 12. of Permit Number
WQ0000701 by failing to prevent surface runoff from the
application area onto adjacent property.
•
for violating Permit Condition Il. 15. of Permit Number
WQ0000701 by applying residuals to the corn crop outside of
the active growing season.
for violating Permit Condition III. 2. of Permit Number'
WQ0000701 by failing to maintain proper records of PAN
loading rates.
$ L -,o o o TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is ) * ?percent of the
maximum penalty authorized by G.S. 143-215.6A.
$ 429.64 Enforcement costs
$ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
As required by G.S. 143-215.6A(c), in determining theamount of the penalty I considered
the factors listed in G.S. 143B-282.1(b), which are:
(1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public
health, or to private property resulting from the violation;
(2) • The duration and gravity of the violation;
(3) The effect on ground or surface,water quantity or quality or on air quality;
(4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
(5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
(6) Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
(7) The.prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs
over which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority;
and
(8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
(Date) Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF IREDELL
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT'
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST
PERMIT NO. WQ0000701
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
FILE NO. PC 00-064
Having been assessed ciyil penalties totaling $14,429.64 for
violation(s) as set forth in the assessment document of the Director of the Division of Water Quality
dated, March 16, 2001 , the undersigned, desiring to seek remission of
the civil penalties, does hereby waive the right to an administrative hearing in the above -stated matter
and does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the assessment document.
This the
day of ,2001.
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE

JAMES I3.' HUNT JR
14%0VERNOR
• RECEIVED
APR 25 2006
DENR-FAYETBILLEREGIONALOFRCE
July 17, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Poupart
FROM: D. Rex Gleason
PREPARED BY: Ellen Huffman
SUBJECT: • Recommendation for Enfordement
Violation of Permit No. WQ000070 1
Tyson Foods, Inc
Land Application of Sludge
Rowan County, North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Attached is the enforcement report/recommendation concerning.violations of the subject
permit. The violations resulted from Tyson Foods' mismanagement of land application
activities.
• The attached material should be self-explanatory; however, if you have any questions,
please contact Mrs. Ellen Huffman or me.
Attachments _
ebh
919 NORTH MAIN STREET, 400RESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28118
PHONE [phone] FA-704-663-6040
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Page 1
'Summary
On Wednesday, May 24, 2000, the Mooresville Regional Office received a,complaint•
from Mr. Ben Knox, NCDA, concerning the improper application of residuals by Tyson Foods,
Inc. (TF) on the Dr. Adams farm site off SR 1980 (Montgomery Road) in western Rowan County.
As a result of Mr. Knox' observance of field conditions, an investigation was conducted by Mrs.
Ellen Huffman with this Office on Thursday, May 25, 2000. On May 30, 2000, Mrs. Huffman met
with Mr. Knox, NCDA, Mr. Danny Wyatt and Mr. Dan Crow with Tyson'Foods, and Mr. Bo
Smith with Terra Renewal Services (the residuals contractor) at the application sites in question.
Observations made by Mrs. Huffman during the investigation on May 25, 2000, found
that residuals had migrated from the residuals, application area (owned by Dr. Adams) to a
neighboring property. Residual migration was apparently aided by a rainfall event that occurred
shortly after the application. Other application areas also showed signs of residuals migration. Mr.
Knox collected soil samples'from another application field (on Dr. Adams' farm) during the site
visit on May 30, 2000. Results from these tests are attached.
On June 12, 2000 a Notice of Violation/Recommendation for Enforcement was sent to
Mr. Lawrence Sampson, Jr., Project Engineer, Tyson Foods, Inc., advising him of the permit
violations and the intent of the MRO to pursue an enforcement recommendation.
Chronology of Events/Correspondence
May 24, 2000 Complaint received in MRO from Mr. Ben Knox, NCDA, concerning problems at
Tyson Foods, Inc. (TF) residuals land application site off SR 1980 (Montogomery
Road) in Rowan County.
May 25, 2000 Mrs. Ellen Huffman met with Ben Knox and Charles Lee, farmer/leasee of Dr.
Adams' property, at the subject land application site. The operator/truck driver
was met at the gate. Operator could not produce a copy of the permit or a spill
plan. Over application of residuals were observed to have occurred on several
fields on Dr. Adam's farm. Photos were taken.
May 26, 2000 Received (via fax) field information for Dr. Adams' farm from Mike Cook, Terra.
Renewal Services (TRS-Tyson's sub -contractor). Field information was
incomplete and date of PAN analyses was from the previous monitoring period.
The method used for calculating the pounds of PAN was also questionable.
May 30, 2000 Follow-up investigation of Tyson Foods residuals disposal site by Mrs. Ellen
Huffman with the DWQ. Accompanying Mrs. Huffman during the investigation
was Danny Wyatt and Dan Crow with TF, Mr. Ben Knox with NCDA
(complainant), Mr. Charles Lee, farmer, and Mr. Bo Smith with Terra Renewal
Services. The observations that were made on May 25, 2000 by Mrs. Huffman
were pointed out to the TF representatives and Bo Smith. Soil samples were
collected from a field that had recently received waste.
June 12, 2000 Received soil analysis by for the soil samples taken on May 30,
2000 by Ben Knox. Analyses show high nitrogen andhigh soluble salts on several
fields.

July 7, 2000
July , 2000
Chronology of Events/Correspondence continued
page 2
June 12, 2000 NOV/NRE sent to Mr. Lawrence Sampson, Project Engineer, Tyson.Foods, Inc.,
indicating that violations of the subject permit had been documented. Mr.
Sampson was informed that an enforcement recommendation would be pursued.
June 13, 2000 Letter from Ben Knox documenting questionable land application activities since
June 1999, by TRS sub -contractor, Lundy, Inc. Letter also clarifies which fields.
Mr. Lee (the farmer) had applied fertilizer.
A fax response to the NOV/NRE from Dan Crowe, Tyson Foods, was received at
the Mooresville Regional Office.
Trucking logs received from Mike Cook,TRS. Review.of logs show application
during February on partially frozen land as well as inappropriate crop cover of
corn (should be a winter crop such as winter wheat).

CHECKLIST FOR PERMIT VIOLATIONS
1. A copy of the Permit (#WQ0000701) is attached.
2. The violator is Tyson Foods, Incorporated. Mr. Lawrence Sampson, is an agent for the
company.
Mr. Lawrence Sampson, Jr., Project Engineer
Tyson Foods, Inc.
Post Office Box 88
Wilksboro, North Carolina 28697
3. This enforcement does not include effluent limit violations. It involves violations of non -
discharge Permit conditions.
4 Copies of correspondence are attached.
5. There are no chain -of -custody samples.
6. The violation is not due to a power failure or by-pass of any treatment facility.
7. Are violation(s) chronic and/or due to a single operational upset?
The violation is considered to be chronic due to poor management practices over the last
12 months.
8. Were any specific notifications submitted concerning noncompliance?
A NOV/NRE was sent on June 12, 2000, which documented the subject permit violations
and indicated that an enforcement recommendation would be prepared.
9. Cost of the investigation:
4 hours by Ellen Huffman for preparation
of enforcement report at $20.38/hour =$ 80.32
1 hour by D. Rex Gleason for supervisory review
at $36.52/hour = 36.52
1 hour for clerical processing at $10.93/hour = 10.93
Administrative Cost for processing report = 300.00 '
Total 427.77

CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT FACTORS FOR WATER QUALITY CASES
CASE NAME: Tyson Foods, Inc.
ASSESSMENT FACTORS:
A. CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION(S)
The violations are the result of Tyson Foods, Inc. (TF) failing to comply with the terms
and conditions of their land application Permit.
• Permit Condition I. 7. requires that a copy of the permit be maintained at the land
application site when residuals are being applied and that a spill prevention and control
plan be maintained in all residuals transport and application vehicles. None of the
vehicles on site had spill control plans or a copy of the State issued permit.
• Permit Condition I. 8. requires that specific residual application area boundaries be clearly
marked on each site prior to and during application. No buffers were marked.
• Permit Condition II. 4 requires that application rates not exceed the application rates.
specified in the permit. The contractor staff on site could not verify application rates.
Additionally, application rates appeared to be excessive as injected residuals were surfacing
in several places and there were signs of residual migration throughout the application field.
• Permit Condition II. 12 requires that adequate provisions be made to prevent wind erosion
and surface run-off from conveying pollutants from the residuals application area onto
adjacent property or into any surface waters. Evidence of residuals run-off could be seen
at several application sites. Residuals run-off had also entered adjacent property. along
fence line.
• Permit Condition II 15 requires that residuals not be applied at rates greater than
agronomic rates unless authorized by the Division. Soils tests and photos show evidence
of application greater than agronomic.rates. -
• Permit Condition III. 2 requires that proper records be maintained by the Permittee to track
all application activities. These records shall include, but are not necessarily limited to the
following:
a. source of residuals
b. date of residuals application
c. location of residuals application (site, field, or zone #)
d. ,method of application
e. weather conditions (sunny, cloudy, raining, etc.)
f. soil conditions
g. type of crop or crops to be grown on field
h. volume of residuals applied in gallons/acre, dry tons/acre or kilograms/hectare
i. annual and cumulative totals of dry tons/acre of residuals, annual and cumulative
pounds/acre of each heavy metal (which shall include, but not be limited to cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc), annual pounds/acre of plant available. nitrogen (PAN),
and annual pounds/acre of phosphorus applied to each field.
Neither Tyson. Foods nor TRS could provide loading data or cumulative totals for land
application activities for previous events at these sites. Also not recorded were method of
application, weather conditions, soil conditions, and type of crop.

B. THE DEGREE AND EXTENT OF HARM CAUSED BY THE VIOLATION(S)
Residuals did not appear to have entered surface waters.
C. DURATION OF THE VIOLATIONS)
The violations occurred sometime between July, 1999 and May, 2000.
D. EFFECT OF VIOLATION(S) ON WATER, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FISH OR
WILDLIFE
There is no documented effect on water or public health as a result of the violation.
E. EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY PREVENTIVE OR RESPONSIVE MEASURE
TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR
Tyson Foods did not take any preventive or responsive action.
F. COST OF RECTIFYING THE DAMAGE OR INFORMATION THAT WOULD
BE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE COST, SUCH AS PROCESS RATES,
CLEAN UP COSTS
Cost of damage is difficult to determine. Crop damage has been confirmed but crop has
not yet been harvested.
G. THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR'S PREVIOUS RECORD OF COMPLIANCE OR
NONCOMPLIANCE
Tyson Foods (TF) was assessed a penalty for violations of the subject land application
permit on February 3, 1993 (case no.WQ92-021). The penalty ($2,456.39) was paid in full
on February 16, 1993. TF was also assessed a penalty for violations of the subject permit
on January 7, 1998 (case no. 97-005). The penalty ($4,440.77) was paid in full on January
20, 1998.,Other Division enforcement cases include LV 96-014 (NPDES Permit limit
violations), in which TF was assessed $4,806.06 on October 31, 1996 and the company
paid in full on November 21, 1996.
H. MITIGATING, AGGRAVATING FACTORS, IF ANY
This Office is concerned with the past history of poor management of TF's non -discharge
activities. Tyson seems to have a 'lack of concern' about the permit conditions and poor
over -site of their sub -contractor, TRS. This is not the first violation for over application
activity that Tyson has had.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
COUNTY. OF ROWAN
File No., PC
IN THE MATTER OF: )
TYSON FOODS, INC. )
FOR VIOLATIONS OF PERMIT) FINDINGS AND DECISION
NO. WQ0000701 AND ) AND ASSESSMENT
NCGS 143-215.1 , ) OF CIVIL PENALTY
FOR FAILING TO PROPERLY )
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN )
LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM)
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statute (G.S.) 143-215.6A, I, Kerr T.
Stephans, Director•of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), of the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, make the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Tyson is an incorporated business organized and existing under the laws of the
State of North Carolina.
B. On March 31, 1998, DWQ issued Water Quality Permit No. WQ0000701 to
Tyson Foods for the operation of a wastewater residuals land application program.
Residuals sources are Harmony, Case Farms, and Townsend processing plants.
Permitted sites are located in n Alexander, Davie, Rowan, Yadkin, and Wilkes
Counties.
C. On May 25, 2000, DWQ staff from the Mooresville Regional Office observed
poor operating conditions on several areas of the Adams farm in Rowan County.
D. Said permit contains the following relevant conditions:
• Permit Condition I. 7 requires that a copy of the permit. be maintained at the
land application site when residuals are being applied (during the life of the
permit) and that a spill prevention and control plan be maintained in all
residuals transport and application vehicles. None of the vehicles on site had.
spill control plans and a copy of the State issued permit was not available.
• Permit Condition I. 8 requires that specific application area boundaries be
clearly marked on each site priorto and during application. No buffers were
marked as required.
• Permit Condition II. 4 requires that application rates (stated in the permit) not be
exceeded for specified crops. The sub -contractor staff on site could not verify
application rates. Additionally, application rates appeared to be excessive as
injected residuals were surfacing in several places and there were signs of
residual migration throughout the application field.

• Permit Condition II. 12 requires that adequate provisions be taken to prevent
wind erosion and surface runoff from conveying pollutant§ from the residuals
application area onto the adjacent property or into any surface waters.
Evidence of residuals run off could be seen at several application sites.
Residuals run-off had also entered adjacent property along a fence line.
• Permit Condition II. 15 requires that residuals not be applied at rates greater
than agronomic rates, unless authorized by the Division. Photos and soils tests
show that residuals were being applied at much greater than agronomic rates.
Nitrogen calculation method is questionable.
• Permit Condition III. 2 requires that proper records be maintained by the
Permittee tracking all application activities. These records include, but are not
necessarily limited to the following:
a. source of residuals
b. date of residuals application
c. location of residuals application (site, field, or zone #)
d. method of application
e. weather conditions (sunny, cloudy, raining, etc.)
f. soil conditions
g. type of crop or crops to be grown on field
h. volume of residuals applied in gallons/acre, dry tons/acre or
kilograms/hectare
i. annual and cumulative totals of dry tons/acre of residuals, annual and
cumulative pounds/acre of each heavy metal (which shall include, but not be
limited to cadmium, copper, lead, nickel,' and zinc), annual pounds/acre of
plant available nitrogen (PAN), and annual pounds/acre of phosphorus
applied to each field.
Neither Tyson Foods nor TRS could provide proper loading data or cumulative
totals for land application activities for previous events at these sites. The method
used to calculate PAN does not adequately reflect what is in the storage tank at
Tyson Harmony Plant. Sampling procedures need to be changed to more
accurately reflect the material being land applied.
E. A notice of Violation concerning the (above mentioned) violations was sent to
Tyson Foods, Inc. by.DWQ's Mooresville Regional Office on June 12, 2000.
F. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures in this matter totaled $427.77.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a "person" within the meaning of G.S.143-215.6A pursuant
to G.S. 143-212(4).
B. The disposal system cited in Findings of Fact B. above falls within the definition
of same at G.S. 143-213(10) or G.S. 143-213(17).
C. A permit is required for the disposal of wastewater pursuant to G.S. 143-
215.1(a)(9) and Part VI, Condition No. 4 of DWQ Permit No. WQ0000701.

D. Tyson Foods, Inc. violated G.S. 143-215.1(a)(9) and Part VI, Condition No. 4 of
DWQ Permit No. WQ0000701 by failing to properly operate and maintain a non -
discharge land application system.
E. Tyson Foods, Inc. may be assessed civil penalties in this matter pursuant to G.S.
143-215.6A(a)(2), which provides that a civil penalty of not more than twenty five
thousand dollars per violation may be assessed against a person who is required
but fails to apply for or to secure a permit required by G.S. 143-215.1(a)(9).
F. The State's enforcement costs in this matter may be assessed against Tyson Foods,
Inc. pursuant to G.S. 143-215.3(a)(9)'and G.S. 143B-282.1(b)(8).
G. The Director, Division of Water Quality, pursuant to delegation provided by G.S.
143- 15.6A(h), has the authority to assess civil penalties in this matter.
III. DECISION:
Accordingly, Tyson Foods, Inc. is hereby assessed a,civil penalty of:
$ for failing to comply with Permit Condition I. 7, which requires
that a copy of the permit be maintained at the land application site
when residuals are being applied (during the life of the permit) and
that a spill prevention and control plan shall be maintained in all
residuals transport and application vehicles. None of the vehicles
on site had spill control plans and a copy of the State issued permit
was not available.
$
for failing to comply with Permit Condition I..8,.which requires
that specific residual application area boundaries be clearly marked
on each site prior to and during application. No buffers were
marked as required.
for failing to comply with Permit Condition II. 4, which requires that
application rates shall not exceed rates for the specified crops in the
permit. Application rates could not be verified by the sub -contractor
staff on site. Application rates appeared to be excessive as injected
residuals were surfacing in several places and there were signs of
residual migration throughout the application field. Review of
application logs indicate
Photos show run-off from several application fields (of the Adams
farm) migrating into natural drainage areas,
for failing to comply with permit condition II. _ 12, which requires
that adequate provisions be taken to prevent wind erosion and
surface runoff from conveying pollutants from the residuals
application area onto the adjacent property or into any surface
waters. Evidence of residuals run off could be seen at several
application sites. Residuals run-off had also entered adjacent
property along a fence line.

for failing to comply with Permit Condition II. 15 which requires
residuals shall not be applied at rates greater than agronomic rates,
unless authorized by the Division. It appears that residuals are
being applied at much greater than agronomic rates. Soil samples
show high nitrogen and high soluable salts.
for failing to comply with permit condition III. 2, which requires
records be maintained by the Permittee to track all application
activities.
TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is percent of the
maximum penalty authorized by G.S. 143-215.6A.
$ 427.77 Enforcement costs
$ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
As required by G.S. 143-215.6A(c), in determining the amount of the penalty I have
considered the factors listed in G.S.143B-282.1(b), which are:
(1) The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public
health, or to private property resulting from the violations;
(2) The duration and gravity of the violations;
(3) The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
(4) The cost of rectifying the damage;
(5) The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
(6) Whether the violations were committed willfully or intentionally;
(7) The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs
over which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory
authority; and
(8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
(Date)
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality

James A. Graham
Commissioner
RECEIVED
APR:2 5 2006
DER a FAYETrEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Tvocrdina
P2paitautri .uf rirul ire
axtbi Iaxtsumsr S.er£rtcez , •
ruxtumtctfxistxtaz
June 13, 2000
Ellen Huffman
NCDENR Div. of Water Quality
919 N. Main St.
Mooresville, NC 28115
Dear Ellen,
Dr. Richard C. Reich
Director
I am concerned about the over -application of biosolid residuals by Terra Renewal Services, TRS,
for Tyson Foods on the Adams Farm that Charles Lee is renting for corn and soybean
production. I believe it is having an adverse affect on crop production and yield.
On June 25,1999, Charles Lee and I examined corn on the Adams Farm. I found the corn to be
extremely stunted with yellow streaks between the veins. A definite pattern of damage was
observed. There would be four rows of damaged corn and then two rows of nonnal corn.
Damaged corn was only six inches tall and normal corn 5 feet tall.
On July 1, 1999, Charles Lee, Kent Messick, Agronomic Division, Field Services Section Chief,
and I revisited the Adams farm to take soil and plant tissue samples. While there We observed
the application of biosolids. We sampled the biosolids and measured the application area
receiving two thousand gallons. We calculated the area covered to be 3000 square feet for an
application rate 29,069 gallons per acre. Waste analysis report number W00148W showed 27
lbs. PAN per 1000 gallons. This is an application rate of 785 lbs PAN per acre.
The application rate of 785 lbs. PAN from the biosolids is far above the permitted application
rate of 160 lbs. PAN per acre for com for grain and 200 lbs. PAN for soybeans. It is suspected
that the stunted symptoms are a result of over application of nutrients applied in 1999.
On May 22, 2000 Charles Lee, Kent Messick and I returned to the Adams Farm to evaluate the
growth of this years corn crop. We found some stunting but not as severe as in 1999. We took
soil and tissue samples of a corn field where biosolids had been applied. We found biosolids
approximately 6 inches under the stunted corn and the soil test results show'a nitrate level of 163
ppm under the bad and 164 ppm under the good corn. This is approximately 291 lbs. PAN per
acre. We did not check for ammonium in these two samples. However Mr. Lee did apply
nitrogen to the com crop and this is also contributing to the high nitrate level.
On May 30, 2000 Charles Lee, Ellen Huffman, Division Water Quality; Steven Smith, Terra
Renewal Services; Daniel Crowe and Danny Wyatt.of Tyson Foods, and I met at the Adams
4300 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-6465
[phone]• FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Farm to discuss residual biosolids application and to observe fields where the material had been
applied:'.
I took soil samples of field P that already had one application of sludge and TRS had returned
and made a second application. Soil samples were taken where a first and second application
had been made. All three samples showed high nitrates and, ammonium levels. The single
application had 692 lbs PAN per acre. The double application in furrow had 473.48 lbs. PAN
per acre. The double application between the furrows had 450 lbs. PAN per acre. Charles Lee
had not applied any fertilizer to this field.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Ben Knox
Regional Agronomist
Cc: J. Kent Messick
Charles Lee

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED,
Mr. Lawrence Sampson, Jr., Project Engineer
Tyson Foods, Incorporated
Post Office Box 88
Wilkesboro North Carolina 28697
- -
Dear Mr. Sampson:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ••
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 12, 2000
RECEIVED.
APR 2 5 2006
OENR -FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
AINSIMERMINVE,
•
Subject: Notice ofViolation and Recommendation for
• Enforcement
Permit No. WQ0000701
• Tyson Land Application Program
• Rowan County -
A site inspection of Tyson's land application fields at Dr. Adams' farm was conducted on May. 25, 2000 by
Mrs. Ellen ilnffizian with this Office as a result of a concern with crop conditions noted by Mr. Ben Knox
North Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA). The following violations of Permit Number
WQ0000701 were observed: •
• Permit Condition I. 7. requires that a copy of the permit be maintained at the land application site
when residuals are being applied during the life of the permit and that a spill prevention and control
plan shall be maintained in all residuals transport and application vehicles. None of the vehicles on
• site had spill control plans and the copy of the State issued permit was not produced.
• Permit Condition I. 8. requires that specific residual application area boundaries shall be clearly
marked on each site prior to and during application. No buffers were marked as required.
• Permit -Condition II. 4."requires that application rates shall not exceed the following for the specified
crops:
. ,
Crop PAN (lb./acre/yr.) ' Crop , - ' PAN (lb./acre/yr.)
,
Alfalfa 200 Forest (Hardwood & Softwood) 75
Bermuda Grass (Hay, Pasture) 220 • Milo• •100
Blue,Grass 120 • . Small Grain (Wheat, barley, oats) 100
Corn (Grain) 160 Sorghum, Sudex (Pasture) 180
Corn (Silage) ' 200' - - Sorghum, Sudex (Silage) -22'0
Cotton • 70 • Soybeans • 200
Fescue ' •250 Timothy, Orchard, & Rye Grass 200 .
Application rates could not be verified by the sub -contract staff on site. Additionally, application rates
appeared to be excessive as injected residuals were surfacing in several places and there were signs of
residual migration throughout the application field.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Page 2
Notice of Violation and Recommendation for
Enforcement Tyson Foods WQ0000701
• Permit Condition II: 12. requires that adequate provisions shall be taken to prevent winderosion and
surface runoff from conveying pollutants from the residuals application area onto the adjacent property
or into any surface waters. Evidence of residuals run off could be seen at several application sites.
Residuals run-off had also entered adjacent property at a fence line.
• Permit Condition II; 15. requires that residuals shall not be applied at rates greater than agronomic
rates, unless authorized by the Division., It appears that residuals are being applied at much greater than
agronomic rates.
• Permit Condition III.2. requires that proper records shall be maintained by the Permittee tracking all
application activities. These records shall include, but are not necessarily limited to the following
information:
a source of residuals
b.: date of residuals application
c. location of residuals application (site, field, or zone #)
d. method of application
e. weather conditions (sunny, cloudy, raining, etc.)
f. soil conditions
g. type of crop or crops to be grown on field
h. volume of residuals applied in gallons/acre, dry tons/acre or kilograms/hectare
i. annual and cumulative totals of dry tons/acre of residuals, annual and cumulative pounds/acre
of each heavy metal (which shall include, but not be limited to cadmium, copper, lead, nickel,
and zinc), annual pounds/acre of plant available nitrogen (PAN), and annual pounds/acre of
phosphorus applied to each field.
Neither Tyson Foods, nor TRS could provide loading data or cumulative totals for land application
activities for previous events at these sites.
The Division of Water Quality is currently reviewing the severity of the noted' violations. Prior to our
preparation of an enforcement action, Tyson Foods may respond to this Notice of Violation. Response to this
NOV "should include mitigating circumstances for the violations and include any new procedures that will be '
implemented to prevent any recurrence. Please reference the state issuedpermitnumber when providing your
response.
As you may know, Tyson. Foods may' be assessed civil penalties: in this matter pursuant to G.S. 143-
215.6A(a)(2), which provides that a civil penalty of not more than twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00)
per violation per day may be assessed against a person who violates any permit condition, classification,
standard, limitation, or management practice established pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1, 143-214.2 or 143-215.
If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Violation and Recommendation for Enforcement, please
do not hesitate to call Mrs. Huffman or me at 704-663-1699.
Sincerely,
D: Rex Gleason, P.E.
Mooresville Region Water Quality Supervisor
cc: Non -Discharge Compliance / Enforcement Unit, Kevin H. Barnett
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit, Shannon Mohr Thornburg
Mooresville Regional Office, Ellen Huffman
Technical Assistance and. Certification Unit
Central Files

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
Complete items 1; 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
• ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.-
1. Article- Addressed to:
COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Received by (Please Print Clearly)
C. Signature
❑
X G7 ❑ A Addressee
D. Is delivery ad s different from item 1? 0 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: CI No
B. Date
Mr. Lawrence Sampson, Jr., Project
Engine3r
Tyson Foods, Inc.
P.O. Box 88
Wilkesboro NC 28697
Delive
gent
3. Service Type
ICI Certified Mail
❑ Registered
❑ Insured Mail
❑ Express Mail
❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra -Fee)
❑ Yes
2. Article Number (Copy from service label)
Z 204 749 793 6/13/00
PS Form 3811, July 19�9g e, s-? y.,rjr, sogiestic Return Receipt' fit ,)„1,rr,� „,�,ltl,02,,5 r99,-M,f„-17tr�89
,•
Z 204 749 793
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
u,
rn
7"
vu nor use ror international Mail (See reverse) ,
Sent to Lawrence Sampson
Fps
Street & prn er
Box 88
Post Offi{A}'Apic NC 28697
Postage
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Retum Receipt Showing to
Whom & Date Delivered
•n
Retum Receipt Showing to Whom,
Date, & Addressee's Address
0
TOTAL Postage & Fees
PS Form 3
Postmark or Date

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI
c.
RY NC
P M co
16.JUN
2n1•
• Sender: Please print
WATER QUALITY �UALITY SECTION _ E ' 00 E `TT
919 NORTH STREET
C 2REE
REE
MOORES-
a mar
». js� .7y. {.•� J J • .r
e, address, and-Z1P+4 In t box •
a1A131���pp��qq
i s
aittltl Of 91V1i111'i3f?EMI, tAftl K('rt
a.
Wilil[lta KW;
14i11ItD6�
EtS4II , II i�4kE4f 131dS i�.S lfiliiill!t![��SIl 11!Sl fl

and application for Tyson
67 0
Subject: land application for Tyson
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 13:28:40 -0500
From: Perry Wyatt <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Soil and Water Conservation
To: Ellen Huffman <[e-mail]>
RECEIVED
APR 2 5 2006
DENR-FAYETIEVILLEREGIONALOFRCE
I have reviewed.the lab analyses that you sent me. .The soluble salts are
a -major concern on nearly all of the fields. High amountsof salts can
reduce productivity and stunt plant growth. I would also recommend that
test be run to check the copper and zinc levels. We are finding that
high levels of these two elements can also reduce production.
1 of 1 12/27/2000 8:33 AM

Lab Data
Subject: Lab. Data
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:26:15 -0500
From: Perry Wyatt <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Soil and Water Conservation
T,o:.Ellen. Huffman• <[e-mail]>
Upon reviewing the lab data the soluable salts are approaching'levels
that will cause yield reductions on crops such.as corn and soybeans. As
salt concentrations in the soil increase plants must exert increasingly
more effort to extract water. Soluable salts also have the potential to
destroy the soils structure and reduce water infiltration. Yields began
to decline when soluable salt levels'are at 1.5 (ECe Concentration,
mmhos/cm), this is assuming that average moisture conditions •are
maintained throughout the growing season. If moisture conditions are
lower, salt concentration increases along. with salt injury.. On average,
salt concentration doubles as the soil dries from saturation to field
capacity. It doubles again as it dries to wilting point.
As you can see from the test results Fields N1,N2,P2,Q1, and M1 are
already above 1.5 while the other fields are approaching 1.5. I Would
suggest that applications to all of these fields be halted before futher
damage to crop production and soil structure can occur.
1 of 1 12/27/2000 8:37 AM

Re: [Fwd: "on -site" storage]
l.\Ja03o3']Q
Subject: Re:.[Fwd: "on -site" storage]
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:55:19 -0400
From: Shannon Thornburg <[e-mail]>
Organization: Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
To: Ellen Huffman <[e-mail]>
Ellen,
RECEIVED
APR 25 2006
OENR - FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Our permit shells typically require that prior Division approval be
received prior to storing residuals at an application•site. The
condition from the permit shell reads as follows: "No residuals at any
time shall be stored at any application site, unless approval has been\
requested and obtained from the Division."
So, I believe that the intent of this condition is that a permit
modification would not be required (i.e., unless the residuals would be
stored for longer than two years, which would be a,whole different ball
game). My recommendation would be to have EMA Resources submit a
written request that describes their plan. --Then,. we could provide.a
written authorization/concurrence. I definitely think that it would be
important for us to have paper trail on things like this, just so
there isn't questions, confusions, etc. later on. •
Considering that no one is currently in Kevin B.'s position yet, I think
that it would be o.k. if this were handled through MRO (especially since
you could go out to the site and "see" how things would work out), as
long as NDPU and NDCU were copied on all correspondence. I could then
make sure that things get into Central Files!
Do you think that this sounds reasonable?
Shannon
Ellen Huffman wrote:
> Shannon,
> Does DENR require a permit amendment for off -site temp.. storage?
> I have no problem with off site storage as long as Eric and EMA are
> following EPA off -site storage guidelines.
> --
> Ellen Huffman - [e-mail]
> North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
> Div. of Water Quality
> 919 N. Main St.
> Mooresville, NC 28115
> Ph: 704. 663.1699 Fax: [phone]
>
> Subject: "on -site" storage -
> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:18:26 -0400
>:From: "Erik Blankenship" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Weil Hello! Congratulations.on the two additions to the "Walton
> Family". I'm sure your head is spinning with all of these grandbabies
> to keep up with. I, was just wanting to touch base with you about the
> issue of staging a frac tank at the Montgomery County sites, when they
> are permitted, for efficiency in operation. I received and read the
> copy of the EPA's manual for "off -site" storage. It basically provides
1 of 2 8/7/01 9:35 AM

Re: tFwd: "oti-site" storage]
> recommendations and management practices for operating "off -site"
> facilities. I guess my question is what do I have to do from my end as
>--.far •as, an_y:permit: requirements or 'applications I will' need to submit
> in =order, 'to, 'receive permission from 'you guys to place a frac tank in
> the field for temporary storage. The 20-,000 gallon frac tank will be
> used. primarily for instances when our trucks leave the plant and the
> weather is BEAUTIFUL and durin.g,the 1.5 to 2 hour trip to the:site, it
> starts to rain. Iwould like to have the flexibility to unload into
?.`'the. frac "tenk' instead of having to send the load back to the plant.
> Also, from a production standpoint, I would like for the trucks (3) to
> be able to unload their last load of the day into the frac tank, so
> the next morning we can be land applying biosolids while the' trucks
> load and transport. I hope I'didn't ramble on aimlessly. If you could,
> contact me when you get a chance and tell me what to do. -Thank
> you. Erik
2 of 2 8/7/01 9:35 AM

:•DAMES' B.- HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
• ,,BILL'HOLMAN
;'.SECRETARY
•
•
-rt
Mr. Dan Crowe
Tyson Foods
P.O. Box 158
Harmony, NC 28634
Dear Mir. Crowe: \
i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF -'
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE.
October 2, 2000
RECEIVED
APR 2 5 2006
DENR-FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
Subject: Non -discharge Inspection
Tyson Harmony Facility
Permit No. WQ0000701
Iredell County
Enclosed is the non -discharge inspection report that was conducted on
September19, 2000 by Mrs. Ellen Huffman with this Office. This inspection is part
of our initiative to inspect all non -discharge programs during each calendar year.
It is noted in Ms. Huffinan's report that Tyson is in the process of having Horizon
Engineering inspect the subject storage facility and develop a spill plan for the facility.
The spill plan is to be submitted to the Division of Water Quality upon completion.
The inspection reports should be self-explanatory; however, if you have any
questions, please contact Mrs. Huffman or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
D. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Attachment
cc: Non -Discharge Compliance/Enforcement Unit
FfIZ ST;
W,r4 AMET:I4A
919 NORTH MAIN STREET, MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 213115
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER
AN

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
J
/\\
(,,,\,,,,,,,, \4,-- —
/_ M1Jrj
NCDENR
NON -DISCHARGE COMPLIANCE INSPECTION
GENERAL INFORMATION
City/Town/Owner: Tyson - Harmony Plant
Permit No.: W00000701
Last Amended Date: N/A
If applicable SOC Issuance Date: N/A
Permittee Contact: Danny Wyatt
ORC Name: Alan Brown
County: Iredell. Davie, Wilkes, Yadkin,
Alexander, & Rowan Counties
Issuance Date: March 31. 1998.
Expiration Date: April 30, 2000
Expiration Date: N/A
Telephone No.: 336-838-2171
Telephone No.: 336/492-6395
Reason for Inspection
ROUTINE
COMPLAINT X FOLLOW-UP OTHER
Type of inspection
Collection System Spray Irrigation X Sludge Other
Inspection Summary: (additional comments may be included on attached pages)
The Tyson Harmony Plant renders waste poultry by-products into a "corn meal" type product that is
used as an additive for animal feed products. Residuals from the Wilksboro, Townsend Foods, and
Case Farms plants are transported to the Harmony Plant where they are further processed and stored,
or are land applied "as is" after mechanical DAF process. There has been no land application activity
from the Harmony facility since issuance of the Notice of Violation/Notice of Recommendation for
Enforcement on June 12, 2000. Tyson is currently providing additional treatment for Wilkesboro,
Townsend, and Case Farms DAF residuals at the Harmony plant. Tyson is sending all of the residual
material from Harmony's residuals storage facility to Alabama for land application. The residual storage
facility was inspected during this visit. The new contractor, EMA Resources, is planning application
activity (in October, from storage only) on land permitted in Alexander County. A follow-up inspection
will be conducted once the above mentioned land application activity begins. Tyson does not have a
spill plan for the Harmony storage tank (as required) but has hired Horizon Engineering to review all
of their facilities; and Horizon Engineering is scheduled to inspect the Harmony facility on September
27, 2000. Tyson will send the completed spill plan to Raleigh and the MRO.
Is a follow-up inspection necessary . X yes no
Inspector(s) Name(s)/Title(s) Ellen Huffivan / Env. Technician V
Telephone No. 704/663-1699 Fax No. 704/663-6040
Date of Inspection September19. 2000

Residuals Inspection pg 1
Tyson WQ0000701 Iredell County
Type of Residual
X Land Application(industrial residuals) Distribution and Marketing (class A)
Record Keeping ' No land application activity at time of inspection.
Y/N
Y Copy of current permit available at residual generating site
* Current metals and nutrient analysis (see permit for frequency)
* TCLP analysis SSFA (Standard Soil Fertility Analysis)
* Nutrient and metals loading calculations (to determine most limiting parameter)
Y Hauling records- # gal/tons hauled during calendar year to date
* Field loading records Y Field site maps and information
* Records of lime purchased (only used when residuals are surface applied)
'rJa Pathogen & Vector Attraction Reduction -
Comments- *No land application activity at time of inspection: Items will be checked once
analyses are submitted to the MRO prior to land application,
Pathogen & Vector Attraction Reduction records (check which methods apply)
N/A -see comment below..
Comment: This permit does not require fecal analyses or vector attraction reduction, however,
fecal analyses should be considered as a monitoring parameter, as long as waste from the
Wilksboro, Townsend Foods, and Case Farms plants, can be "applied "as is" after DAF
mechanical treatment. Only the Harmony Plant has a process that is "hot" enough (160-200°F)
to get adequate fecal kill. Waste shipped to Harmony is pre -heated before being processed in a
three phase Alfa Lavel decanter (centrifuge).
Fecal coliform Not required
SM 9221 E (Class A or B) "
(Class A,all .test must be <1000 MPN / dry gram).
(Class B, Geo. mean of 7 samples/monitoring period - <2.0* 106 CFU / dry gram)
SM 9222 D (Class B only)
(Geo. mean of 7 samples/monitoring period for Class B <2.0* 106 CFU / dry gram)
Salmonella (Class A, all tests must be < 3MPN / 4 grams dry
Time / Temp records. Not required
Digester (MCRT), : Conipost n/a Class A lime stabilization n/a
VolatileSolids Calculations
Bench -top aerobic/anaerobic digestion results n/a
pH records for lime -stabilization( Class A or B ) n/a

Residuals Inspection pg 2
Tyson WQ0000701 Iredell County
Treatment (check treatment type(s) used) N/A
Comment: Residuals are considered an industrial waste product. See comment under pathogen
and vector attraction.
Aerobic digestion n/a Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion (ATAD)
n/a Anaerobic digestion n/a Drying beds (may not meet 503's)
n/a Alkaline Stabilization Lime other X
Compost (check treatment type used)
Windrow n/a Aerated Static Pile n/a In vessel n/a Other n/a
Transport
Permit in transport vehicle? Y Spill control plan in transport vehicle? Y
Does transport vehicle appear to be maintained? Y
Operation & Maintenance records No land application activity at time of inspection.
Calibration records of land application equipment n/a
Condition of land application equipment on site n/a
Storage
Number of months storage 30 days
Describe storage: above ground tank with a 520.000 gallon capacity.
(if more than 2 yrs, does facility have Surface Disposal Permit?) n/a
Spill control plan on storage site? Tyson does not have a spill plan for it's storage tank (as required)
but has hired Horizon Engineering to review it's facilities. Horizon is scheduled to inspect the
Harmony facility on September 27, 2000. Tyson will send the completed spill plan to Raleigh and
the MRO.
Lagoon - Is lagoon lined
Above ground tank X In ground tank n/a
Aerated Mixed X Aerated Mixed
Drying beds Concrete storage pads
Sampling
Describe Sampling.
As the current permit allows, wastes from the Wilkesboro, Townsend Foods, and Case Farms
Facilities can be land applied "as is" or receive further treatment at Harmony. Each waste stream is
sampled and analyzed separately. Calculations submitted in the 1999 annual report were found to
be questionable and confusing. DWQ returned the 1999 annual report. A revised 1999 annual report
was received July 21, 2000. Subject permit is currently being processed for renewal.

Residuals Inspection pg 3
Tyson WQ0000701 Iredell County
Is sampling adequate *X Is sampling representative *X
*The new contractor, EMA, has contracted with Tyson to apply only waste residuals from the
Harmony storage facility, which contains the residuals generated from the Alfa Lavel decanter
process at the Harmony Plant.
Field Sites ,No land application activity- at. time of inspection.
Permit on site during application
Buffers adequate
Documented exceedances of PAN limits
Signs of runoff / ponding
Rain Gauge on site during application
Spill plan on site -
Cover crop specified in permit -
Site condition adequate .
(if no, improvements recommended)
Comments- Rain gauge is placed at the field one day prior to land application activity.
Are there any limiting slopes on fields? Y/N N
10 % for surface application 18% for subsurface, application
Monitoring well(s) in permit: no
If yes; .Location of well(s)
Odors/vectors No land application activity at time of inspection.
Odors present
Vectors present
Describe any nuisance Conditions and any corrective actions needed.
Comment: Tyson has a history of odor problems. The current permit allows (possibly
unstable) waste from Wilkesboro, Townsend Foods, and Case Farms to be land applied
or processed further at -the Harmony Plant. Partially stabilized residuals may be the cause
of the odor.

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
July 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO:.Teff Poupart
FROM: D. Rex Gleason V
PREPARED BY: Ellen Huffman
SUBJECT:
NON -DISCHARGE COMP PAGE 01
VCcJ3-0Ei
NOTCH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RZ5OURCE5
MOORESVILLE RLGIQNAL OFFICE
RECEIVED
AUG 2 2000
1 'i.TER QUALJTY SECTION
. amplianc6; nf.
Recommendation for Enforcement
Violation of Permit No. WQ0000701'-
Tyson Foods, Inc
Attached is the enforcement report/recommendation concerning violations of the subject
permit. The violations resulted from Tyson Foods' mismanagement of land application
activities, This Office recommends a substantial' penalty.
The attached material should be self-explanatory; however, if you have any questions,
please contact Mrs. Ellen Huffman or mo.
Attachments
ebh
RI4 NORTH MAIN STREET, MCOREiVILLI, NORTH CARDLIIIA RBI 1E
('HONK 704-963.1 E0H FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL. dPPaRTUNITY ! ARYIRMATIV! ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED/IO% POET-CONEVMLR PAPER

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE COMP
PAGE 02
—Page 1
Summary
On Wednesday, May 24, 2000, the Mooresville Regional Office received a
complaint from Mr. Ben Knox, NCDA, concerning the alleged improper application of
residuals by Tyson Foods, Inc. (TF) on the Dr. Rickard Adams farm site off SR 1980
(Montgomery Road) in western Rowan County. Mrs. Ellen Huffman (with this Office)
met Mir, Knox at the Adams farm on Thuxsday, May 25, 2000 to further investigate. On
May 30, 2000, Mrs. Huffman and Mr. Knox, met with Mr. Danny Wyatt and Mr. Dan
Crow with Tyson Foods, and Mr. Bo Smith with Terra Renewal Services (the residuals
contractor) at the application sites in question.
Observations made by Mrs. Huffman during the investigation on May 25, 2000,
found that residuals had migrated from the residuals application area (owned by Dr.
Adams) to a neighboring property. Residual migration was apparently aided by a rainfall
event that occurred shortly after the application,. Other application areas also showed
signs of residuals migration during the site visit on May 30, 2000. Mr. Knox collected
soil samples from en application field (on Dr. Adams' fartn). Results from these tests are
attached.
On June 12, 2000 a Notice of Violation/Recommendation for Enforcement was
sent to Mr. Lawrence Sampson, Jr.,.Project Engineer, Tyson Foods, Inc., advising him of
the permit violations and the intent of the MRO to pursue an enforcement
recommendation.
Chronology of Events/Correspondence
May 24, 2000 Complaint received in MRO from Mr. Ben Knox, NCDA, concerning
problems at Tyson Foods, Inc. (TF) residuals land application site owned
by Dr. Richard Adams off SR 1980 (Montogomery Road) in Rowan
County.
May 25, 2000 Mrs. Ellen Huffman met with Ben Knox and Charles Lee, farmer/leasee of Dr.
Ada ns''property, at the subject land application site. The sub contracted
operator/truck driver for Terra Renewal Services (TRS) was met at the gate.
The operator could not produce a copy of the permit or a spill plan as required
by the subject permit. Over application of residuals were observed to have
occurred on several fields on Dr. Adam's farm. Photos were taken.
May 26, 2000 Received (via fax) field information for Dr. Adams' farm from Mike
Cook, TRS. Field information was incomplete and date of PAN analyses
was from the previous monitoring period, The method used for calculating
the pounds of PAN was also questionable.
May 30, 2000 Follow-up investigation conducted of Tyson Foods residuals disposal site
by Mrs. Huffman, Accompanying Mrs, Huffman during the investigation
were Danny Wyatt and Dan Crow with TF, Mr. Ben Knox with NCDA

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE COMP PAGE 03
Chronology of Events/Correspondence continued
page.2
(complainant), Mr. Charles Lee (farmer), and Mr. Bo Smith with Terra
Renewal Services. The observations that were made on May 25, 2000 by
Mrs. Huffman were pointed out to the TF representatives and Bo Smith.
Soil samples were collected from a field that had recently received waste.
June 12, 2000 Received soils analysis (performed by USDA) from Mr. Ben Knox for the
soil samples taken on May 30, 2000 by Ben Knox. Analyses show high
nitrogen and high soluble salts on several fields.
June 12, 2000 NOVINRE sent to Mr. Lawrence Sampson, Project Engineer, Tyson
Foods, Inc., indicating violations of the subject permit had been
documented. Mr. Sampson was informed that an enforcement
recommendation would be pursued.
June 13, 2000 Letter from Ben Knox documenting questionable land application
activities since June 1999, by IRS sub -contractor, Lundy, Inc. Letter also
clarifies which fields Mr. Lee (the farmer) had applied fertilizer.
July 7, 2000 A fax response to the NOV/NKE from lax Crowe, Tyson Foods, was
received at the Mooresville Regional Office. The response indicated that
Tyson had informed Lundy (subcontracted by TRS for land application
services) of permit requirements. Tyson also stated that Lundy was
responsible for the failure to comply with the permit, as instructed.
July 17, 2000 Trucking logs received from Mike Cook, TRS. Review of logs showed
application during February on partially frozen land as well as inappropriate
cover erop of corn (should be a winter crop such as winter wheat).
July 21, 2000 Review of resubmitted- annual report for 1999 confirmed over application
of residuals in 1999 on the Adams farm. The first annual report was
returned May 30, 2000 as `incomplete' by Non -Discharge Compliance /
Enforcement Unit. The resubmitted report is also incomplete. PSRP
(stabilization) data is not included in the report as required by permit
condition I-11.

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE. COMP
PAGE 04
CHECKLIST FOR PERMIT VIOLATIONS
1, A copy of the Permit (#WQ0000701) is attached.
2. The violator is Tyson Foods, Incorporated. Mr. Lawrence Sampson, is an agent
for the company.
Mr. Lawrence Sampson, Jr., Project Engineer
Tyson Foods, Inc,
Post Office Box 88
Wilksboro, North Carolina 28697
3. This enforcement does not include effluent limit violations. It involves violations
of non -discharge Permit conditions.
4. Copies of correspondence are attac1.ed.
5. There are no chain -of -custody samples.
6. The violation is not due to a power failure or by-pass of any treatment facility.
7. Are violation(s) chronic and/or due to a single operational upset?
The violation is considered to be chronic due to poor management practices over
the last 24 months.
8. Were any specific notifications submitted concerning noncompliance?
A NOV/NRE was sent on June 12, 2000, which documented the subject permit
violations and indicated that an enforcement recommendation would be prepared.
9. Cost of the investigation:
4 hours by Ellen Huffman for preparation
of enforcement report at $20.38/hour 81.52
1 hour by D. Rex. Gleason for supervisory review
at $37,19/hour = 37.19
1 hour for clerical. processing at $10.93/hour 10.93
Administrative Cost for processing report = 300.00
Total 429,64

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE COMP PAGE 05
CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT FACTORS FOR WATER QUALITY CASES
CASE NAME: Tyson Foods, Inc.
ASSESSMENT FACTORS;
A. CAUSE OF THE VIOLATION(S) .
The violations are the result of Tyson -Foods, Inc. (TF) failing to comply with the terms
and conditions of their land application Permit.
• Permit Condition I. 7. requires that a copy of the permit be maintained at the land
application site when residuals are being_ applied and that a 'spill prevention and
control plan be maintained in all residuals transport and application vehicles.
None of the vehicles on site had spill control plans or a copy. of the State issued
permit,
• Permit Condition I. 8. requires that specific residual application area boundaries be
clearly marked on each site prior to and during application. No buffers were
marked.
• Permit Condition II.4 requires application rate not exceed the application rate
specified in the permit. The contractor staff on site could not verify application rate.
Additionally, application rate appeared to be excessive as injected residuals were
surfacing in several places and there were signs of residual migration throughout the
application field. t
• Permit Condition II. 12 requires that adequate provisions be made to prevent wind
erosion and surface ruin. -off from conveying pollutants from the residuals
application area onto adjacent property or into any surface waters. Evidence of
residuals run-off could be seen at several application sites. Residuals run-off was
also observed to have entered adjacent property,
• Permit Condition 11.15 requires that residuals riot be applied at rates greater than
agronomic rates unless authorized by the Division. Soils tests confirm the
observation of application greater than agronomic rates.
• Permit Condition III. 2 requires that proper records be maintained by the Permittee
to track all application activities. These records shall include, but are not
necessarily limited to the following:
a. source of residuals
b. date of residuals application
c.. location of residuals application (site, field, or zone #)
d. method of application
e. weather conditions (sunny, cloudy; raining; etc.)
f. soil conditions
g. type of crop or crops to be grown on field
h. volume of residuals applied in gallons/acre, dry tons/acre or
kilograms/hectare '

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE COMP
PAGE '06
i. annual and cumulative totals of dry tons/acre of residuals, annual and
cumulative pounds/acre of each heavy metal (which shall include, but not be
limited to cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc), annual. pounds/acre of
plant available nitrogen (PAN), and annual pounds/acre of phosphorus
applied to each field,
Neither Tyson Foods nor TRS could provide adequate loading data or cumulative
totals for land application activities for previous events at these sites. Also not
recorded were residual stabilization monitoring, method of application, weather
conditions, soil conditions, and type of crop.
B. THE DEGREE AND EXTENT OF HARM CAUSED BY THE VIOLATION(S)
Residuals did not appear to have entered surface waters.
C. DURATION OF THE VIOLATIONS)
The violations occurred sometime between July, 1999 and May, 2000.
D. EFFECT OF VIOLATION(S) ON WATER, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FISH
OR WILDLIFE
There is no documented effect on water or public health as a result of the
violations.
E. EFFECTIVENESS OF ANY PREVENTIVE OR RESPONSIVE MEASURE
TAKEN BY THE VIOLATOR
Tyson Foods did not take any preverxtive or responsive action.
F. COST OF RECTIFYING THE DAMAGE OR INFORMATION THAT
WOULD BE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE COST, SUCH AS
PROCESS RATES, CLEAN UP COSTS
Cost of damage is difficult to determine. Crop damage has been confirmed, but
crop has not yet been harvested.
G. THE ALLEGED VIOLATOR'S PREVIOUS RECORD OF COMPLIANCE
OR NONCOMPLIANCE
Tyson Foods (TF) was assessed a penalty for violations of the subject land
application penzit on February 3,1993 (case no.WQ92-021), The penalty
($2,456,39) was paid in full on February 16, 1993. TF was also assessed a penalty
for violations of the subject permit on January 7, 1998 (case no. 97-005). The
penalty ($4,440.77) was paid in full on January 20, 1998. Other Division
enforcement cases include TN 96-014 (NPDES Permit limit violations), in which
TF was assessed $4,806.06 on October 31, 1996 and the company paid in full on
November 21,1996.

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE COMP
PAGE 07
H. MITIGATING, AGGRAVATING FACTORS, IF ANY
This Office is concerned with the past history of poor management of TF's non -
discharge activities. Tyson seems to have a 'lack of concern' about the permit
conditions, and poor oversight of their sub -contractor, TRS. This is not the first
violation for over application of residuals that Tyson has had. Getting field data
from TRS was difficult at best, Requested field data (sent by TRS) for this
Office's review was incomplete. Last years annual report (by. TRS) was returned
as incomplete. Resubmitted annual report by Tyson Foods (also incomplete)
revealed PSRP testing for residual stabilization was not conducted nor reported
for 1999.

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE COMP
PAGE 08
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
COUNTY OF ROWAN
File No. PC
IN THE MATTER OF: )
TYSON FOODS, INC. ) FINDINGS AND DECISION
FOR VIOLATIONS Ole PERMIT) AND ASSESSMENT
NO. vVQ0000701 AND � • ) OF CIVIL PENALTY
NCGS 143-215.1 )
FOR FAILING TO PROPERLY )
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN )
LAND APPLICATION SYSTEM)
Acting pursuant to North Carolina General Statute (G,S.)143-215,6A, I, Kerr T. Stevens,
Director of the. Division of Water Quality (DWQ), of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, make the following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Tyson Foods is an incorporated business organized and existing under the laws of
the State of North Carolina.
B, On March 31, 1998, DWQ issued Water Quality Permit No. W00000701 to
Tyson Foods for the operation of a wastewater residuals land application program.
Residuals sources are harmony, Case Farms, and Townsend processing plants.
Permitted disposal sites are located in Alexander, Davie, Rowan, Yadkin, and
Wilkes - Comities.
C. On May 25, 2000, DWQ staff from the Mooresville Regional Office observed
poor operating conditions on several areas of Dr. Richard Adams farm in Rowan
County.
D. Said permit contains the following relevant conditions:
• Permit Condition I. 7 requires that a copy of the permit be maintained at the
land application site when residuals are being applied (during the life of the
permit) and that a spill prevention and control plan be m.aintained in all
residuals transport and application vehicles. None of the vehicles on'site had
spill control plans and a copy of the State issued permit: was not available.
• Permit Condition I.8 requires that specific application area boundaries be
clearly marked on each site prior to and during application. No buffers were
marked as required.
• Permit Condition II. 4 requires that application rates (stated in the permit) not be
exceeded for specified crops. The sub -contractor staff on site could not verify
application rates, Additionally, application rates appeared to be'excessive as
injected residuals were surfacing in several places and there were signs of
residual migration throughout the application field,

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE COMP
PAGE 09
• Permit Condition II, 12 requires that adequate provisions be taken to prevent
wind erosion and surface runoff from conveying pollutants from the residuals
application area onto the adjacent property or into any surface waters.
Evidenceof residuals run off could be seen at several application sites.
Residuals ran -offload also entered adjacent property along a fence line.
• Permit Condition II. 15 requires that residuals not be applied at rates greater
than agronomic rates, unless authorized by the Division.. Soils tests indicate
that residuals were being applied at much greater than agronomic rates.
Tyson's Nitrogen calculation method is questionable.
• Permit Condition III.2 requires that proper records be maintained by the
Permittee tracking 'all application activities. These records .include, but are not
necessarily limited to the following:
a. source of residuals
b. date of residuals application
e. location of residuals application (site, field, or zone #)
d. method of application
e.. weather conditions (sunny, cloudy, raining, etc.)
f. soil conditions
g. type of crop or crops to be grown on field tons/acre or
h; volume of residuals applied in gallons/acre, dry
kilograms/hectare
i. annual and cumulative totals of dry tons/acre of residuals, annual and
cumulative pounds/acre of each heavy metal (which shall include, but not be
limited to cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc), annual pounds/acre of
plant available nitrogen (PAN), and annual pounds/acre of phosphorus
applied to each field. Neither Tyson Foods nor TRS could provide adequate
loading data or cumulative totals for land application activities for previous
events at these sites, The method used to calculate PAN does not adequately
reflect what is in the storage tank at Tyson Harmony Plant. Sampling
procedures need to be changed to more accurately reflect the material being
land applied.
E. A notice of Violation concerning the (above mentioned) violations was sent to
Tyson Foods, Inc. by DWQ's Mooresville Regional Office on June 12, 2000.
F. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures in this matter totaled $429.64.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make.the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OFLAW:
A. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a "person" within the meaning of G.S.143-215.6A pursuant
to G.S. 143-212(4)..
B. The disposal system cited in Findings of Fact B. above falls within the definition
of same at G.S. 143-213(10) or G.S. 143-213(17).
C. A permit is required for the disposal of wastewater pursuant to G.S. 143-'
215.1(a)(9) and Part VI, Condition No. 4 of DWQ Permit No, WQ0000701.

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE COMP
PAGE 10
D. Tyson Foods, Inc. violated G.S. 143-215.1(a)(9) and Part VI, Condition No. 4 of
JWQ Permit No. WQ0000701 by failing to properly operate and maintain a non -
discharge land application system..
E. Tyson Foods, Inc. may be assessed civil penalties in this matter pursuant to G.S.
143-215.6A(a)(2), which provides that a civil penalty of not more than twenty five
thousand dollars per violation may be assessed against a person who is required
eqired
but fails to apply for or to secure a permit required by G.S. 143-215.1 a 9 .
F. The State''s enforcement costs in this hatter may be assessed against Tyson Foods,
Inc. pursuant to G.S. 143-215,3(a)(9) and G.S. 143B-282.1(b)(8).
G. The Director, Division of Water Quality, pursuant to delegation provided by G.S.
143-15.6A(h), has the authority to assess civil penalties in this matter.
III. DECISION_: -
Accordingly, Tyson Foods, Inc. is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$
$
for failing to comply with Permit Condition I.7, which requires
that a,copy of the permit be maintained at the land application site
when residuals are being applied (during the life of the permit) and
that a spill prevention and control plan shall be maintained in. all
residuals transport and application vehicles. None of the vehicles
on -site had spill control plans and a copy of the State issued permit
was not available.
for failing to comply with Permit Condition I. 8, which requires
that specific residual application area boundaries be clearly marked
on each site prior to and during application. No buffers were
marked as required.
for failing to comply with Permit Condition II. 4, which requires that
application rates shall not exceed rates for the specified crops in the
permit. Application rates could not be verified by the sub -contractor
staff on site. Application rates appeared to be excessive as injected
residuals were surfacing .in several places and there were signs of
residual migration throughout the application field. Review of
(application) truck logs indicated poor weather conditions during
land application activities. Photos show run-off from several
application fields (of the Adams farm) migrating into natural
drainage areas.
for failing to comply with permit condition II. 12, which requires
that adequate provisions be taken to prevent wind erosion and
surface runoff from conveying pollutants from the residuals
application area onto the adjacent property or into any, surface
waters. Evidence of residuals run-off could be seen at several
application sites. Residuals run-off was also observed to have
entered adjacent property.

11/16/2000 16:59 919-733-0059
NON -DISCHARGE COMP.
PAGE 11.
for failing to comply with Permit Condition II. 15 which requires
residuals shall not be applied at rates greater than agronomic rates,
unless authorized by the Division. From the sample data collected, it
appears that residuals are being applied at much greater than
agronomic rates. Soil samples,show high nitrogen and highsoluable
salts.Review of 1999 annual report confirms over application or
residuals on the Adams farm.
for failing to comply with permit condition III. 2, which requires
records be maintained by the Pet'mittee to track all application
activities.
TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is percent of the
maxinuun penalty authorized by G.S. 143-215.6A.
429.64 Enforcethent costs
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
As required by G.S. 143-215.6A(e), in deterrnining the amount of' the penalty 1 have
considered the factors listed in O.S.143B-282.1(b), which axe:
The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public
health, or to private property resulting from the. violations;
The duration and gravity of the violations;
The ,effect on ground or surface water'quantity or quality or on air quality;
The cast of rectifying the damage;
The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
Whether the violations were committed willfully or intentionally;
The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs
over which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority;
and
The"cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
(8)
(Date) Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality