310794_DV-2022-0052 Remission (Request)_20220817

RECEIVED
AUG 17 ZOZ
NC DEQIDWR
Central Office
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DUPLIN
IN THE MAITER OF ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST
JOHN A. MATTHEWS
PERMIT NO. AWS310794
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
FILE NO. DV-2022-0052
Havingbeen assessed civil penalties totaling $8,394.32 for violation(s) as set forth in the
assessment document of the Division of Water Resources dated. July 1, 2022, the undersigned,
desiring to seek remission of the civil penalty, 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. The undersigned furtherunderstands that all evidence presented in supportof remission
of this civil penalty must be submitted to the Director of the Division of Water Resources within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice of assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission
request will be allowed after thirty (30) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment.
This the` day of
f#,Gk3ifi
, 2022
M
Signature
ADDRESS j1[�
I WQg4 l s0.�(l .
1\1C D% y s�
TELEPIHONE
'I0 7 c -_I-7 .

JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
APS Case Number: DV-2022-0052 County: Duplin
Assessed Party: John A. Matthews
Permit. No.: AWS310794 Amount assessed: S8,394.32
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the
"Request For Remission. Waiver of Rizht to an Administrative Hearin v, and Stimulation a1 Facts"
form to request remission of this civil penalty. You should attach any documents that you believe
support your request and are necessary for the Director to consider in determining your request for
remission. Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five
factors fisted below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the amount of thc civil penalty
assessed. Requesting remission is not the proper procedure for contesting whether the violation(s)
occurred or the accuracy of any of the factual statements contained in the civil. penalty assessment
document. By law [NCGS 133-215.6A(f)j remission of a civil penalty may be granted when one
or more of the following five factors applies. Please check each factor that you believe applies to
your case and provide a detailed explanation, including copies of supporting documents, as to why
the factor applies (attach additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in NCGS 143B-282.1(bl were
wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessmentfactors are
included in the attached penalty matrix and/or listed in the civil penalty assessment
document);
►/ (b)
the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation (i.e., explain the steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent
future occurrences);
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (Le.. explain why the
violation was unavoidable or something you could not prevent or preparefor);
(d) the violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) pa} ment of thc civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions (i.e., explain how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you
from performing the activities necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION: G L r I-11 m i �i on t-
Qt4.4.05-1- arr.) Plcanerl-;ion s i n
-c-c) l 1 oW in S k.¢_-1i-.5,y. 0 1 hckn�5
\Kent. req.

John Matthews
Matthews Brothers Farm 1 &2
118 W. Main St.
Rose Hill, North Carolina 28458
August 8, 2022
Attn:
Miressa D. Garoma
Animal Feeding Operations Program
Division of Water Resources
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1636
To whom it may concern,
The purpose of this letter is to respond to the violations that occurred at Matthews Brothers
Farm 1 & 2 on February 22, 2022 due to a broken solid set sprayer pipe during a routine
irrigation event, and the subsequent civil penalty and investigative/enforcement costs assessed
in the amount of $8,394.32.
I would like to address these violations in order and provide solutions taken and protocols
implemented to ensure this doesn't happen again.
Violation 1: Run off occurred from cows breaking a sprayer pipe and ponding in the field and
running into nearby woods where a swampy area is located. 1 have not and am not disputing
this occurred, which is in violation of my permit. The broken pipe was immediately repaired and
a tractor and hay king were hired to aerate the field and prevent future run off from occurring.
Violation 2: Not notifying DWR that a wastewater discharge had occurred. 1 was not aware a
discharge had occurred until Jennifer Ryan of the Wilmington branch of DWR called my cell
phone on the afternoon of February 23rd. She had tried first to reach my OIC, John Tyler but
was unsuccessful. 1 was blindsided by this information, but immediately realized the
seriousness of the situation and went out to meet the inspectors even though I was "flying
blind", so to speak. 1 was as helpful, courteous, and respectful as I could be with the
inspectors. Had !known of a discharge I would have notified DWR as required.
Violation 3: Failure to release a press release within 48 hours of discharge. I was never
opposed to releasing a press release and am not opposed now. By the time I was aware of this
48 hour window, that timeframe had already passed, and I figured my chance to issue said
press release was gone. In talking with the inspectors, 1 was informed that !would have 48
hours after a positive sample was collected to issue a press release however it was brought to
my attention that the downstream sample was not positive for waste. !remain unopposed to
releasing a press release in the hope it would eliminate that portion of the civil penalty.
I would like to address some remedies taken to prevent this from occurring and provide some
past and present background and context, that while not might make much or any difference,
might possibly mitigate some of the civil penalty assessed. To say a vast change in farm

management and irrigation protocol/practice was immediately implemented is an
understatement: Any and all irrigation matters, including pumping, are now handled by irrigation
specialist Nathan Bridges of Bridges Irrigation. My former farm supervisor/OIC resigned the day
after the NOV occurrence, and I, the owner, am back handling all day-to-day farm operations
and basically directly overseeing everything. In addition to the aforementioned
repairs/improvements to the field in question, we have replaced T handle valves, hydrant heads,
installed ball valves on sprayer heads, aerated other fields, basically tried to do anything in all
spray fields that would improve irrigation both from a practical and safety perspective. With
today's economy and the circumstances I have been facing due to my brother's passing, the
hiring my new irrigation specialist, and substantial farm repairs totaling $7,609.75, it's an
understatement to say that I am under tremendous financial burden.
My former OIC was hired about 3 plus years ago and was in charge of everything farm
management and pumping related. I personally have not done any pumping after hiring him,
although I was the OIC for the history of the farm prior to hiring him. I am stating this to
underscore that I had no idea this had occurred and was completely shocked to receive the call
that a spill had occurred. I certainly realize that as the owner! am ultimately responsible, but I
take the responsibility as outlined in the permit very seriously, and was devastated when this
occurred. In the 24 plus years of being the owner and OIC, Matthews Brothers Farms 1 & 2 has
never been issued a notice of violation; this is the first one.
Also, just prior to these events, my brother, David Matthews, passed away. He was also my
business partner and co-owner of the farm. The afternoon I got the call that a NOV had
occurred, me and my surviving siblings were meeting in Rose Hill (just miles away from the
farm) to start going through his belongings and take care of his house. I left my siblings to
immediately go the farm to meet with the inspectors. To deal with this NOV while
simultaneously dealing with my brother's death has been challenging to say the least.
I would also like to address the part of the letter that is equally troubling to me: being required
to apply for a NPDES permit. It should be noted that Matthews Brothers Farm 1 & 2 is currently
in the process of being sold. Financial arrangements/agreed price has been finalized and
literally, sale of the farm is being processed by cape fear farm credit as we speak. It has been
my understanding from asking around, perhaps erroneously, that there would most likely be a
civil penalty assessed which I would be responsible for, but not any repercussions for the future
buyer. I have indicated as much to my buyer. I am very concerned that if my buyer has to
inherit a more restrictive permit due to a NOV that was my responsibility, it could possibly
torpedo the sale. This buyer is an existing grower with Smithfield who has never had a NOV at
his farm. In addition, as previously stated above, there has been a total and drastic change in
management implemented at Matthews Brothers Farm, especially in regards to irrigation. Both
change in ownership and management are listed in the letter as reasons that a farm might not
have to be issued a NPDES permit: both are in play and applicable here. I humbly and
respectfully request that a change to a NPDES permit not be required in this case as it would
unfairly burden the future owner and possibly negatively impact the sale of Matthews Brothers
Farm 1 & 2.
In closing, this was an unfortunate accident that occurred and absolutely no willful intent was
involved. As previously stated, in the 20 plus year history of Matthews Brothers Farms a NOV
was never issued. To be issued one after that long and right before the sale of the farm is
incredibly frustrating. I do not dispute what happened and realize responsibility rests on my
shoulders since I am the owner. I would respectfully hope that the corrections we have

implemented would mitigate some the civil penalty fine assessed and that those corrections and
imminent sale of the farm would preclude the necessity to go to a NPDES permit.
Sincerely,
John Matthews
Matthews Brothers Farm 1 & 2
Owner