310160_ENFORCEMENT_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Richard L. Burrows, Esq.
Burrows & Hall
317 North Norwood Street
Wallace, NC, 28466
srwn „
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
13 O. BOX 620
RALEIGH
27G024)629
April 26, 2005
APR >>t 8 2005
Rtpiy to:
Anita LeVeaux
Environmental Division
Tel: 919n 16-6600
Fax: 919n l6-6766
By Facsimile and First Class Mail
Re: State of North Carolina v. Coy Carter, 04 EHR 0179
Dear Mr. Burrows:
This letter is in response to your settlement letter of April 21, 2005: You indicated in your
letter that my office agreed to settle the matter for three thousand, six hundred and twelve dollars
and fifty cents ($3,612.50) : Actually, we agreed to split the difference on the charge of making
an outlet to the waters of the state. DENR assessed four thousand dollars ($4,000.00), and the
ALJ assessed one thousand ($1;000.00) accordingly DENR expected your client to submit the
thousand dollars"($1,000.00) and the difference between the two amounts, i.e., three thousand
dollars ($3,000.00) divided in half or fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500.00). The amount that
should have been tendered for this violation is twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500.00).
Accordingly your client's settlement check is short one thousand dollars ($1,000A0)_
To recap, DENR assessed nine thousand one hundred and twelve dollars and fifty cents
($9,112.50), the Administrative Law Judge reduced the assessment to three thousand one
hundred and twelve dollars and fifty cents ($3, 112.50). The EMC reinstated the charge of
making an outlet to the waters of the State for a total assessment of six thousand one hundred and
twelve dollars and fifty cents ($6,612.50). Your client's tender of three thousand, six hundred
and twelve dollars and fifty cents ($3,612.50) is a mere five hundred dollars ($500.00), more than
what the ALJ recommended. That is not what DENR agreed to and 1 am sorry you
misunderstood my client's proffer. Please submit as soon as possible to the attention of
Ms. Sharlene Moses
Attorney General's Office
Environmental Protection Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
the additional one thousand dollars to fully and completely settle this matter, or DENR can return

ZEE
APR " 8 2005
April 26, 2005
Page 2
the additional one thousand dollars to fully and completely settle this matter, or DENR can return
your client's check and you should feel free to file this matter in Superior Court. If you have any
questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Serely,
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
c: Jeff Poupart
Rick Shiver

�OF W A TF,9v
,0A 6
co DUU3
=i
0 �
Coy Carter
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1&2
668 Rivenbank Town Rd.
Wallace, NC 28466
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
May 24, 2005
RE: Acknowledgment of Receipt of Payment
Case No. DV 03-048
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2
Duplin County
Dear Mr. Carter:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
MAC `' � Zp45
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your check No. 2393 in the arff6unt of $3,612.50 on
April 27, 2005 and check No. 2397 in the amount of $1,000.00 on May 2, 2005. These payments
satisfy in full the civil assessment settlement agreement in the amount of $4,612.50 levied
against Coy Carter and the case has been closed. If you have any questions, please call me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Keith Larick
Animal Feeding Operations Unit
cc: Chester Cobb, Wilmington Regional Office
File # DV 03-048
APS Central Files
Richard L. Burrows, Esq.
Sharlene Moses, DOJ
t'wCaro' a
ural
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Internet: hLV://h2o.enr.state.nc.us 2728 Capital Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27604
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50910 Recycled/l0"/o Post Consumer Paper
Phone [phone] Customer Service
Fax [phone]
Fax -[phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
00 ZZ 0' 31 LH 'AMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF DUPLIN
04 EHR 0179
}
COY CARTER )
Petitioner )
vs. }
DECISION
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT }
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DMSION )
OF LAND RESOURCES }
Respondent )
A Petition for a Contested Case Hearing in the above captioned case was filed in
the Office of Administrative Hearings on February 9, 2004_ The contested case was
heard by Senior Administrative Law Judge, Fred. G. Morrison Jar. on June 17 and 18, 2004
in Surf City, NC.
APPEARANCES
Richard L. Burrows
317 North Northwood Street
P.O. Box 916
Wallace, NC 28466
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
Anita LeVeaux
Assstant Attorney General
NC Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
APPLICABLE LAW
N_C.G.S. § 143-215.1
ISSUES
Whether Petitioner made an outlet to the waters of the State of North Carolina in
violation ofNCGS 143-215.1 (a)(1) without a permit?
ZO 'd 01: Zi b0 . 8Z 130 99Z9-9IZ-6i6: xPJ NOI133S GNU-1 '8 d31UM

3.
2. Whether the Petitioner violated the following conditions of his Permit:
a. Condition III 11: Failing to notify the State within 24 hours following first
knowledge of the discharge
h_ Condition III 10: Failing to maintain record for the application event
c. Condition II 1: Failing to maintain - a vegetative covering on the
application fields
d. Condition II 11: Failing to keep the lagoon areas accessible and vegetative
igowth mowed
e. Condition III: Failing to submit to the State:.'a copy of all public notices
and proof that the public notification requirements were met.
3. Whether Respondent's agents violated DENR rules when they entered upon
Petitioner's property without first obtaining permission and identifying themselves and
whether such act significantly prejudiced Respondents rights.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parties
I . The petitioner, Coy Carter ("Petitioner") owns and operates with his sons, a swine
facility ("facility') existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina. The facility
operates under a general NPDES perrnit,issued under the provisions of N.C_ Gen. Stat.
§215. The facility is located in Duplin County, North Carolina.
2. The respondent, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources ("Respondent"), assessed a: civil penalty against Petitioner following an
investigation of a citizen's complaint that indicated wastewater pumped from Petitioner's
spray field was pooling in a ditch and no one was at the site to turn it off.
The Remndents Investigation
3_ On Saturday June 29, 2003, Respondents received a complaint that waste was
seen in Stockingham Creek (the `Ureer ). (Respondent's Exhibit 141
4. On June 30, 2003, Respondent's agents Gale Stenberg and Stony Mathis
("Investigators") investigated the complaint. The investigators went to the complainant's
farm and identified the pink waste in Stockinghatn Creek. ;
S. The investigators then followed the waste upstream to the next farm and
investigated that farm to determine if it was the source of the pink waste. The
Investigators did not identify any releases of waste from this farm.
6. The investigators followed the pink release upstream until: they arrived at the
Petitioner's farm. As investigators walked up the strearn following the pink discharge,
N
9-o'd TE:ZT Vol 8Z 100 9919-9TZ-6T6:xP3 NOIla3S QNi3 8 a31dm

they observed the pink discharge coming from a ditch between the Petitioner's farm and a
neighboring farm.
7_ The investigators walked up this ditch along both the Petitioner's property and the
neighboring property. Investigators identified ponded waste in a culvert corning from the
Petitioner's property_
$. Investigators took samples of the water in the ditch 'at the culvert, upstream from
the culvert, and downstream from the culvert. The sample results show exceptionally
high fecal coli at the culvert (2.1 Million�colonies/ 100ml); high fecal coli readings within
the ditch ( 141,440 and 83, 640 eolonie' /100ml), high fecal coli:readings downstream
from the ditch (124, 550 colonies/100 ml), and much lod=er readings upstream of the
ditch (7820 colonies/100 m1).
9. After investigators identified waste coming from the Petitioner's property and
after they had taken samples, they called Petitioner.to come to the farm to discuss their
findings. The investigators did not call Petitioner prior to entering Petitioner's premises.
10. Investigators identified the waste as pigmaste due to color =d odor. The color of
the waste was the same as that contained in the lagoons on the Petitioner's farm. The
investigators had many years of experience working with pig waste.
11. When Petitioner and sons arrived at -..the faru'i;, investigators showed them the
waste release and where they believed- the-: waste had 'entered the ditch from the
Petitioner's property. Petitioner and his sons provided investigators with alternative
explanations for waste being in the stream. They pointed -out thav the field on the other
side of the ditch had recently been sprayed with turkey -litter, whch could have caused
the release. The Carters also indicated that cows graze in the fields and could have
caused the release.
12. Investigators testified that the points where turkey litter could have entered the
stream were downstream of the points where samples were taken. This was due to the
topography of the field sprayed with turkey litter. Accordibg to investigators, this field
slopes away from the ditch. Investigators also testified that. turkey; litter is dark in color,
not consistent with the pink color in the. water. Petitioners testified ithat part of the turkey
litter field does slope into the ditch and that they attempted to show investigators places
where turkey litter was held up in the grass as it was washed into the ditch. Investigators
testified that they did not see any turkey litter in the ditch. '
13. Based on the samples taken at the culvert and the color of the waste, it is more
likely than not that hog waste entered the ditch.at the culvert:
14. Investigators requested from the Petitioners records of hog waste spraying events.
Investigators testified that Petitioners stated they did not have records for the spray event
that occurred on June 28, 2003. Petitioners state that they told the investigators that the
records were in the office which was onsite, but that the investigators never requested
3 j
b0 'd Ts_�: ZT b0. 8Z 130 99Z9-9TZ-6T6: XPJ NOI103S GNU-1 -8 2JMUm

that they get the records. On the day of the investigation, Petitioners received a copy of
the investigation report citing therm for not having records. It is not likely that they would
see this citation for lack of records and fail to provide these;records to the investigators if
the records were in existence at the time.
15. The records provided to Respondent's attorney just prior to the hearing, indicate
that hog. waste was sprayed on the field on iune 28, 2003. Petitioner's song Michael
Carter ("Michael"), sprayed the field on June 28, 2003. Michael testified that he turned
on the spray reels at 10 a.m. and turned one reel off an lxonr and a half later. He then
went to town to get lunch and when he returned around 12:3 0 he co.atends that the second
reel had automatically turned off.
16. Investigators testified that they based their estimate of how much waste had been
released on a reading on a stick in a lagoon. According to investigators this stick
indicated that around 3 to 4 inches of waste had recently been pumped from the lagoon.
Based on this information, the assumed flow rate of the pumps, the size of the lagoon,
and the duration of the spraying, investigators estimated that greater than 20,000 gallons
of waste had been released into the ditch. Petitioners testified that the investigators had
not asked which lagoon they pumped from on -June 28, 2003, and that the investigators
tool: their reading from the wrong lagoon. Petitioners testified that on June 30, 2003,
they pumped the water from the culvert- back onto their property and that less than 20
gallons were in the ditch. One investigator testified that he did not know of "his own
knowledge" which lagoon had been pumped from. Based on these facts, the
preponderance of the evidence does not show how much was released into the culvert.
IT Michael Carter testified that when he went to turn off the reek after he ate lunch, it
was already off. He says that he did not see any run-off or ponding of waste at that time.
18_ Investigators found that field crops had not been properly maintained due to many
weeds being on the field and last year's crop was still on the'field. The crop in the field
was Bermuda or fescue and it is left on the field until it seeds out so that the farmer does
not need to reseed every -year.- Mr. Stenberg testified that the crop had probably seeded
out one month prior to the event in question and that Petitioner was the only farmer who
still had the crop on the field: Iv ram. Stenberg testified. that there was no objective number
of weeds that constituted too many weeds. Petitioner testified that fescue seeds out in
July or August.
19, Investigators also found unmown weeds on the lagoon banks.
20, - Previous Inspection Reports by Division of Water Quality and Division of Soil
and Water Conservation personnel in 2002 indicated that the fields had definite weed
problems and that lagoon banks needed to be mowed.
21. Petitioner testified that they mowed during the summers and sprayed for weeds at
least once per year. Petitioner did not produce any records of this activity.
i
f
4
50 'd T2: ZT 170, 8Z 130 992-9-9TZ--6T6: X2J NOI103S QNti-1 S 83idm

22. A notice of wastewater spill was run in the Duplin.iTimes on Jul 17, 2003, more
than 10 days after the release of waste into the ditch. A copy of this publication was not
sent to the Respondent within 30 days of the discharge.
Violations of Statutes and hIDES Permit
23. The Respondent found that the ditch leading to the Stockingham Creek was a
water of the state and the discharge of waste into this ditch constituted making an outlet
to waters of the State for purposes of G.S. 143-215.I(a}(1), fox which a permit was
required. Respondent assessed a civil penalty of $4000- for this violation
24. The Respondent found that Petitioner had violated Condition No. III. 11. f. of
NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to report -by telephone to the appropriate Regional
Office as soon as possible, but in no case more than.24 hours following first knowledge
of the occua-rence of runoff entering surface waters. Respondent: assessed a civil penalty
of $1000 for this violation.
25_ The Respondent found that Petitioner had violated Condition No. In 10. of
NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to make available records of the irrigation event
on June 28, 2003. Respondent assessed a civil penalty of $500 for this violation.
26. The Respondent found that Petitioner had violated Condition No. II. 1 of NPDES
Permit NCA200000 by failing to properly maintain the land application spray fields as
evidenced by excessive weed growth. Respondent assessed a civil; penalty of $1000 for
this violation,
27_ The Respondent found that Petitioner had violated Condition No. 11. of NPDES
Permit NCA200000 by failing to keep the vegetati6n mowed on the lagoon
embankments. Respondent assessed a civil penalty of $1006. for this violation.
28. The Respondent found that Petitioners had violated Condition No_ 111 15. of
NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to provide a copy of all public notices and proof
of publication within thirty days of a discharge of 15,000 gallons of waste. Respondent
assessed a civil penalty of $1000 for this violation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Office of Administrative Hearings has personal and subject matter
jurisdiction over this contested case.
2. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.3 provides that the Commission shall have the power to
investigate as necessary and to "enter at `reasonable times upon any property, public or
private, for the purpose of investigating -the condition of airy waters and the discharge
therein of ... waste." The investigators entered the Petitioner's property during a
workday and during work hours to investigate an ongoing release into the waters of the
state. This was in accordance with the statute under which the general permit is issued.
5
90 'd Z�; ZT b0, 8z ;30 99Z9-9T: -6T6: xeJ NOU33S QNti-1 '8 d31UM

3. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.3 provides that "no person shalt refuse entry or access
to any authorized representative of the Commission or Department who requests entry for
purposes of inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials, nor shall any person
obstruct, hamper or interfere with any such representative whiic in the process of carrying
out official duties." This requirement is consistent with the requirements for inspection in
the General NPDES permit. This provision is a duty of the P=nittee. It does not
establish a requirement on the investigator to notify the Permittee prior to entry upon a
permitted property. Therefore, the investigators were not in violation of this statute or
their rules when they entered upon the Petitioner's property prior to requesting
permission from the Petitioner.
4. In addition, the failure to notify ithe Petitioner prior to entering the property did
not substantially prejudice the rights of Petitioner. There is no statute or provision in the
NPDES permit that grants a right to Petitioner, to participate in the investigation.
Petitioners were able to provide input once the investigators showed them the release.
They were also able to provide further information to the agency and at the contested
case hearing-
S. N-C. Gen. Stat. §143-215.1(a) provides that no person shall make an outlet to the
water of the state unless they have a permit for such activity. The preponderance of the
evidence shows that hog waste was released from the eulvert"on the Petitioner's farm into
the bordering ditch which flowed into Siocldngham Creek which is a water of the state.
The Petitioner did not have a permit for this release.
r
6. Respondent assessed a $4000 penalty upon Petitioner on the basis of a release of
20,000 gallons of swine waste discharged into the ditch. The preponderance of the
evidence does not support the estimation of a volume of waste discharged and therefore
the penalty should be reduced to $1,000.00.
7. The preponderance of the evidence'does not indicate'that Petitioners were aware
of a release on June 28, 2003. Therefore a penalty for failing to notify the appropriate
regional office within 24 hours is inappropriate in this case. The appropriate authorities
were aware of the event before Petitioners, so any notification,would have been moot.
B. Petitioners were aware that the investigators had citedl,them for failure to provide
records on June 30''. This information was provided to Petitioners in their copy of the
investigation report. Petitioners failed toprovide copies of the records on June 30, 2003,
and did not provide records until several days before the contested case hearing. This
was a violation of their duty under the NPDES permit and the civil penalty of $500 for
this violation is upheld.
9. The civil penalty of $1000 for failure to maintain the crop is not appropriate
because Petitioner was waiting until the crop seeded out before' mowing.
,6 3
ZO'd Z� ZT VO, 8Z 130' ' 992-9-94-6I6
xe3 NOI103S GNU-1 ' d31UM

10. The civil penalty of $1000 for failure to maintain'the lagoons should be upheld
because the petitioner has been cited on two prior occasions for failing to properly
maintain the lagoon.
11. The civil penalty of $1000 for failure to provide notification of a press release of
the event should not be upheld because the preponderance of the evidence does not
establish the quantity of waste released and thus does; not establish whether a press
release was required under the requirements of the penait.
12. The enforcement costs of $612.50 is reasonable and -is upheld.
DECISION
The decision of the Respondent to assess civil penalties: against the Petitioner
should :be modified as described above.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the agency serve a copy; of the final decision on the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714,
in accordance with N_C.G.S. § 150B-36(b).
NOTICE
r
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural, Resources, the agency making
the final decision in this contested case, is required to give, each party an opportunity to
file exceptions to the Decision and to present written arguments to those in the agency
that will consider this Decision. See N.C.G.S. § 150B-36(a).
The agency is required to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and to
furnish a copy to the parties' attomey of record and to the Office of Administrative
Hearings. See N.C.G.S. §150B-36(b).
This the 22"d day of October, 2004:
_.j 7
V,O
i
I, l'
Fred G. Mom"son'Jr.
Senior Administrative Law Judge
80'd Z£:ZT YO, 8Z 100
99L9-9U-6T6=xp3
NOI 33S GNU-1 S d31dM

A copy of the foregoing was mailed to:
Richard L. Burrows
317 North Northwood Street
P.O. Box 816
Wallace, NC 28466
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER.
Anita LeVeaux
Attorney General's Office
Environmental Protection Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
This theQ. /day of October 2004.
8
0 i T 2 1 2 C)"4
N.C,,a;-,r;:, z-N.5Fy GrNzJFt,_
Environmental Divi_;en
i
v `1•
Office cOAdmirdstrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
60'd i£:ZT b0. W 100
99Z9-9Tz-6T6: XeJ NOI 33S QNUI '8 d31dm

ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
a
s
State of worth Carolina
Deparrmenr of Justice
P O. BOX 629
RALEI
02 7602.06 9 .. DATE : O C 7' Z-S Z C>U "i
FACSEMLE TRANSAG'rrAL SHEET
TO:.. ,IC 4e-- S hJV 1-e-
V�);iL_KI N G-TNV - ee(sdoN A-L
FRO Pvt: A N 1 TA L, C v E& u)�
PHONE NO: [phone]
FAX NO:., [phone]
FAX NO: 9 " I D - zzq
SUBJECT: D CAI 5IOVV IN CW-0:9M OW O 1 1�
NO- OF ?AGES INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET
COMIVEI TS:
CONFIDENTLALITY NOTE. The information contained in this Facsimila is legally privileged and confidential and is
irtterhded only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination. distribution or copy of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
facsimilc in =rmr, please immediately notify us by telephone an reiurn the original message to us at the address above by U.S.
postal service. Thank you.
i
F-
TO 'd 02: ZT VO, 8Z 100 99Z9-9T2--6T6: xE3 NOI103S &U-1 8 2BiU 1

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone]
Mar 17 '04 10:20 P.01
C O V E R
S H E E T
From the desk of...
Jener D. Leach
Paralepl
Depar"ent of Justice
9001 Mail sera
(;enter
Raleigh NC I7699-9001
Tel: [phone]
Fix. [phone]
To:
Jeff Poupart (Y)
Keith Larick (Y)
1Lck $ativer•(i�
Gail Stenberg (F) -
Fax No:
Programmed
Subject:
Coy Carter DV 03-048
Date:
March 1:8, 2004
pages:
11, including cover sheet
COMMENTS:
FAX
Please read the attached documents, Assignment Memo, Petition for Contested Case
Hearing and Petitionees Preheating Statement. I attached the petition and preheating
statements for you to read in order to get an understanding of Petitioner's concerns.
Thank you, Keith, for getting the CPA to me at the last minute. I apologize for the rush,
however, I had no choice.
You, all of you, have been listed as witnesses to this case, PLEASE e-maiI me to confirm
if you should be deleted from the list or if I need to add other names.
Thanks in advance for your prompt reply and cooperation in this matter.
,,Lc - - --

WATER & LAND SECTION Eax:919-716-6766 Mar 17 '04 10:20 P.02
RQY C:Q(-)r�FR
ATTORNEY [GENERAL
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
P. G. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602-0629
MEMORANDUM
Reply to:
Anita 1.e Vraux
Environmental Division
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
alme Ca'MCdoj-Wm
TO: Jeff Poupart, DWQ Non Discharge Compliance & Enforcement Unit, Supervisor;
Keith Larick, DWQ Non Discharge Compliance & Enforcement Unit;
Rick Shiver, DWQ Wilmington Regional Office Supervisor, and
Gail Stenberg, DWQ Wilmington Regional Office Environmental Specialist
FROM: Janet Leach for Anita LeVeaux, Assistant Attomey General
DATE: March 17, 2004
RE: Civil Penalty Assessment Appeal by Coy Carter of Duplin County
Agency Number: DV 03-048; OAH Number 04 EHR 0179
Please note that i will be handling this Civil Penalty Assessment appeal by the above
referenced petitioner. i will need to begin preparing our case as soon as possible. Please review
the important dates listed below and provide me with the requested information as soon as
possible.
March 12, 2004
Frehearing Statements and Document Constituting Agency
Action must be filed by t4is deadline with OAH. I have requested
and received a .faxed copy of the civil penalty assessment, however,
I do need a clean copy of the enforcement file including a copy of
the assessment, the factors considered in assessing the civil
penalty, results of any samples taken, any correspondence
regarding the violation assessment, and any worksheets drafted
prior to the assessment. Please send these materials by March 31,
2004
WEEK BEGINNING
June 7, 2004
Pease let my office knowwhat day of this week we can schedule a
pretrial conference.
WEEK BEGINNING
June 14, 2004
Hearing is set in Wilmington, NC with Judge Fred G. Morrison,
Administrative Law Judge presiding. Please let me know
immediately if this date is inconvenient for you so that we can
request a continuance. Also, you have been listed as witnesses.
Your names came from the CPA that was faxed to me yesterday.
Please provide me with additional names of personnel involved in

DATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Mar 17 '04 10:20 P.03
this case and let me know if I should delete your name. In other
words, pleas E-mail me to confirm that you should or should not be
a witness so that I can amend the prehearing statement if necessary.
I need to know ASAP so that there will be no confusion as to who
will be expected to appear at the hearing once it is scheduled.
We look forward to hearing from you soon. Any questions concerning the case should be
directed to Anita LeVeaux, attorney of record for Respondent, any questions concerning this
correspondence should be directed to Janet Leach.
A copy of the petition and prehearing statement are attached.

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Mar 17 '04 10:20 P.04
r, 46g®
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DUPLIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FILE NO. 04 EHR
1N THE MATTER OF ]
COY CARTER ]
]
FOR MAKING AN OUTLET TO THE 1
WATERS OF THE STATE OF NORTH ]
CAROLINA WITHOUT A PERMIT ' ]
1
PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
!MMING PURS>JANT TO N_C.G.S. 150B-23
Now comes, Coy Carter,(hereafter "Petitioner"), by and through his counsel, Richard L.
Burrows: of the firm of Burrows & Hall, and respectfully petitions the Court for an Administrative
hearing pursuant to the provisions ofN.C.G.S. §ISOB-23, and shows as follows:
1. That at all times pertinent to the matters in controversy, your Petitioner was the owner of
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 & 2, a swine operation located along SR 1737 in Duplin County, North
Carolina.
2. On the date in question in DENR File No. DV 03-048, Petitioner was lawfully operating
leis swine facility in compliance with the applicable statutory rules and regulations.
3. Petitioner is informed and believes that only a minor amount of runoff occurred, and
Petitioner took immediate actions to remove any ponded waste from the ditch to stop runoff to
waters of the state. Any waste that could have occurred to waters of the state was contained. That
Petitioner was not aware of any waste in the ditches in question until advised by DWQ. The DWQ
I

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Mar 17 '04 10:21 P.05
representative was already present on the farm, and any further notification would have been an
exercise in futility, in that the State then and there had full knowledge of anything that could have
been provided in any additional notice. DWQ's allegation that the operator in charge stated to DWQ
staff that he had noticed the runoff on June 28, 2003, is incorrect, as the operator in charge was out
of town on both June 28, 2003 and June 29, 2003, and could not have observed any runoff on either
of those dates.
4. Petitioner is informed and believed that there were only scattered. weeds located in the
spray fields and on the lagoon embankments, not an excessive weed problem as alleged by DWQ.
DWQ provided no objective standards for "excessive" weeds, and Petitioner is informed and believes
and alleges that there are no objective standards, by regulations or otherwise.
5. Petitioner's attorne}, sent a press release to a local publication, The Duplin Times, for
publication on July 10, 2003. Because of an error at the newspaper, and through no fault of the
Petitioner, the press release was not published_ See Affidavit of Rebecca A. Jones attached (Exhibit
Ali
6. Petitioner is further informed and believes that the Findings and Decision and Assessment
of Civil Penalties is legally erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, and is not supported by competent
evidence or facts, and the conclusions drawn therefrom are therefore legally improper.
7. The Director's Conclusions of Law are insufficient as a matter of law to support a penalty
assessment.
8, The assessed civil penalties, totalling S8,500.00, are not supported by competent evidence,
and incorrcatly applied the statutory rules mandated by the legislature of the State of North Carolina.
Petitioner is informed and believes that the Director did not properly consider the factors required
2

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Mar 17 '04 10:21 P.06
by N.C_G.S. §143-215.6A(c) and §143B-282, but arrived at the penalty assessments by use of a
mathematical formula applicable to a broad class of events; rather than a reasoned decision based
upon statutorily mandated factors. That this process neither procedurally nor substantively considers
or implements the requirements of §143B-292(b).
9. There is no evidence of either any actual or reasonable costs associatcd with any
investigation, inspection or monitoring that resulted in the investigation of the alleged violation, or
of any actual or reasonable costs associated with the enforcement of the state regulations in this case
that would either justify or support the Director's conclusion and assessment of costs in the amount
of 5612.50 in this case.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner, having disputed the findings and conclusions of law, as well
as the penalties and costs assessed by the Director in this case, respectfully requests an
Administrative Dearing, as provided by law.
Dated: February 5, 2004
BURROW
BY:
Richard L_ Burrows
State Bar # 637
P. O. Box 816
Wallace, N. C. 28466
[phone]
Attorney for Petitioner
3

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone]
Mar 17 '04 10:21 P.07
S"PATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DUPLIN
AFFIDAVIT
EXHIBIT- L
1, Rebecca A. Jones, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows:
I . I am over eighteen years of age, and under no physical or mental disability which
would impair my ability to personally know and state the facts hereafter set out,
2. I am a secretary to Richard L. Burrows, an attorney at law in Wallace, North Carolina.
2. On July 10, 2003, 1 prepared -the Notification -of Wastewater Spill in Duplin County,
North Carolina ("Notification") on behalf of Carter & Sons Hog Farms 1 & 2, a copy of which is
hereto attached as Exhibit "I ", On that same day, I called the Duplin Times, a news publication with
offices located in Kenansville, NC, to let them know that we needed to publish the Notification of
Wastewater Spill, and asked for their telefax number so that I could transmit the Notification by
telefax for publication. I was informed that they did not accept legal ads by telefax, and that I would
have to email it in. I was gven an email address of duolintimesnews6r earthlinl:.net, and
immediately emailed the ad to the paper, a copy of send email transmission being hereto attached
as Exhibit "2".
3. On October 31, 2003, 1 called the Duplin Times to inquire about the Affidavit of
Publication, as we had never received one. I. was informed that they had never received nor
published the Notification. I asked for'the email address again, and it was confirmed to me that the
email address that I had sent the Notification to was correct.
4. I never received a notice to our email inbox that the email sent to the Duplin Times
on July 10, 2003, was not received because of an error in the address.
Dated: February , 2004

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Mar 17 '04 10:21 P.08
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
BEFORE ME THIS AY OF
FEBRUARY, 2004.
Notary Public
.__ .- , ..�:__.... �..,,:mac 12 1 —7 _0 17
Page I of 1
Burrows & Hall
From: "Burrows & Hall" <burrows@safedataisp_net>
To; <duplintimesnewsQa earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:09 PM
Attach: carterspill.not.rtf
Subject: Legal Ad. - Carter & Sons Hog Farms, Inc.
Please find attached legal ad, which I would appreciate your publishing in the next available issue_ If you have
any questions, or need the ad to be re-transmltted, please call Rebecca @ 910-285-3600. Please direct any
billing statements to address indicated below.
Thank you for your assistance!
Burrows & Hall
P.O. BOX 816
Wallace, NC 28466
[phone]
NOTIFICATAN OF WASTEWATER SPILL IN DUPLIN COUNTY
In accordance with House Bill 1160, the following news release has been prepared and issued to the media in the
affected county.
Carter & Sons Hog Farms, Inc. I & 2, a Duplin County,.North Carolina, hog fwmm, allcgedly had a wastewater spill
on June 30, 2003 _ The Division of Water Quality alleges that at least 20,000 gallons of wastewater was discharged
into a ditch adjacent to Stockinghead Creek, a tributary of the Northeast Cape Fear River_ The farm owners have
takcn steps to corrcct the alleged problems, including the removal of'ponded waste out of the ditch to stop funkier
discharge to waters of the state. For further information, please contact Coy Carter, phone number [phone].

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Mar 17 '04 10:22 P.09
STATE OF NORTH CA.ROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DUPLiN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FILE NO: 04 EHR 0179
COY CARTER, ]
Petitioner a
V. ]
NORTH C.AROLINA DEPAICENIENT OF ]
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES)
Respondent
PREHEARING STATEMENT
OF PETITIONER
NOW COMES Coy Carter, Petitioner, by and through the undersigned attorney, pursuant to
N.CG.S. § 150B et. seq. and Rule 26 N'CAC 3.0104 and files this Prehearing Statement in the
above -captioned matter.
1. This matter involves `%e assessment of civil penalties dated January 12, 2004, against the
Petitioner, in Duplin County, North Carolina by Jeffrey0. Poupart, Supervisor of the Nondischarge
Compliance and Enforcement Unit of the Division of Water Quality.
Controlling statutes. rules, etc. are those stated in the Civil Penalty Assessment in addition
to Article 2I of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes; N,C.G-S. § 143-215.1(a)(6),
N.G. G.S. 143-211 et. seq. and the rules promulgated thereunder; the Administrative Procedures
Act, N.C.G. S. 5 150B et. seq, and the rules promulgated thereunder, and Title 26, Chapter 3 of the
North Carolina Administrative Code.
The issues to be resolved are:
a. Did the Petitioner cause or permit waste to go into the waters of the State?
b. Did the Petitioner fail to notify DENR of an alleged runoff
C. Did the Petitioner fail to make available records of the spray irrigation event?
d. Did the Petitioner fail to properly maintain the land application fields?
e. Did the P-tition fail to keep vegetation mowed on the lagoon embankments'?
f. Did the Secretary fail to consider the statutory penalty factors as required by
law?
g. Did the Secretary act arbitrarily and capriciously in assessing the civil

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Mar 17 '04 10:22 P.10
penalties against the Petitioner?
2_ The Petitioner contends that the occurrence referred to did not violate N.C. G.S. §143-
2l 5.1(a)(6) to the extent described the Civil Penalty Assessment.
3, Witnesses for the Respondent include, but are not limited to, the following:
Coy Carter, Clay Carter.
Additionally, Petitioner may call additional witnesses, including designating an expert
witness, as well as any person named as a witness by any other party. Petitioner reserves the right
to supplement this list as he prepares for hearing.
4. Petitioner wishes to pursue discovery, the length of time set forth in the Scheduling Order
is acceptable.
5. Petitioner request that the hearing be held in Duplin County, North Carolina.
b. The estimated length of the hearing is one day.
7. Not applicable.
8. Petitioner has no objection to the proposed date or mutually agreed upon changes to
accommodate both parties and the court.
1), No special matters acre known at this time,
Respectfully submitted this q day of March, 2004.
BURRO HALL
By -
Ric and L. Burrows
Attorney for the Petitioner
State Bar # 637
P.O. Box 816
Wallace, North Carolina. 28466
Phone: [phone]

WATER & LAND SECTION Fax:[phone] Mar 17 '04 10:22 P.11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard L. Burrows, Attomey for the Petitioner herein, do hereby certify that a copy of the
foregoing Prehearing Statement was served upon counsel for the Respondent by mailing a copy
postage pre -paid to:
Mr. Dan Oakley
NCDENR
Office of General Coumel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina. 27699-1601
Dated: March _ Q , 2004
A
C
Rich L. Burrows
A

o�oF warFgo MAR 2 2 2004
G
r BY -
CO -
o -c
January I2, 2004
RTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Coy Carter
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2
668 Rivenbank Town Rd.
Wallace, NC 28466
Michael F_ Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W_ idunek, P.E_ Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Duality
SUBJECT: Assessment of Civil Penalties for Violation(s) of
N_C_ General Statute(s) 143-215.1
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1&2
Dupin County
File No. DV 03-048
Permit No. NCA231160
Dear Mr_ Carter:
This letter transmits notice of a civil penalty assessed Coy Carter in the amount of $9,112,50
including $612.50 in enforcement costs.
Attached is a copy of the assessment document explaining this penalty. This action was taken
under the authority vested in me by delegation pursuant to N.C.G.S. 143-215.6A(h). 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 trade directly to the order of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (do not include waiverform). Payment of the penalty will not
foreclose further enforcement action for any continuing or new violation(s).
Please submit payment to the attention of:
Keith Larick
Water Quality Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27699-1617
OR
NCDENR
Customer Service: !Nailing Address: Telephone [phone] Location:
1-877-623-6748 1617 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] N. Salisbury St_
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 State Courier #52-01-01 Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
An Equal OpportunitylAffirrnative Action Employer
50 o recycled/ toe past -consumer paper
http. /h2o.enr.state.naus

Mr. Carter
Page 2
I/1212004
2.
3.
Submit a written request for remission including a detailed justification for such request:
Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to consideration of the five factors listed
below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the amount of the 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. 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 and agreement that no factual or Iegal issues are in dispute. Please prepare a detailed
statement that establishes why you believe the civil penalty should be remitted, and submit it to
the Division of Water Quality at the address listed below. in determining whether a remission
request will be approved, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) whether one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in NCGS I43B-282.1(b)
were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the violator,
(2) whether the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from
the violation;
(3) whether the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident;
(4) whether the violator has been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations; or
(5) whether payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions.
Please note that all evidence presented in support of your request for remission must be submitted
in writing. The Director of the Division of the Division of Water Quality will review your
evidence and inform you of his decision in the matter of your remission request. The response
will provide details regarding the case status, directions for payment, and provision for further
appeal of the penalty to the Environmental Manasement Commission's Committee on Civil
Penalty Remissions (Committee). PIease be advised that the Committee cannot consider
information that was not part of the original remission request considered by the Director.
Therefore, it is very important that you prepare a complete and thorough statement in support of
your request for remission_
In order to request remission, you must complete and submit the enclosed "Request for
Remission of Civil Penalties, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of
Facts" form within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice. The Division of Water Quality also
requests that you complete and submit the enclosed "Justification for Remission Request." Both
forms should be submitted to the following address:
Keith Larick
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
M
File a petition for an administrative hearing ,%N ith the Office of Administrative Hearings.
If you wish to contest any statement in the attached assessment document you must file a petition
for an administrative hearing. You may obtain the petition form from the Office of
Administrative Hearings. You must file the petition with the Office of Administrative Hearings
within thirty (30) days of receipt of this notice. A petition is considered filed when it is received

Mr. Carter
Page 3
1/12/2004
in the Office of Administrative Hearings during normal office hours. The Office of
Administrative Hearings accepts filings Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., except for official state holidays. The original and one (1) copy of the petition
must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings. The petition may be faxed - provided
the original and one copy of the document is received in the Office of Administrative Hearings
within five (5) business days following the faxed transmission. The mailing address for the
Office of Administrative Hearings is:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
Telephone [phone] Facsimile: [phone]
A copy of the petition must also be served on DENR as follows:
Mr. Dan Oakley, Registered Agent
DENR
160I Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
AND
Keith Larick
DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Please indicate the case number (as found on pa-e one of this letter) on the petition_
Failure to exercise one of the options above within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, as evidenced
by an internal date/time received stamp (not a postmark), will result in this matter being referred to the
Attorney General's Office for collection of the penalty through a civil action. Please be advised that
additional penalties may be assessed for violations that occur after the review period of this assessment -
If you have any questions, please contact Keith Larick at [phone], extension 571_
Sincerely,
Jeffrey O. Poupart
Supervisor
Non -Discharge Compliance/Enforcement Unit
ATTACHMENTS
cc: Rick Shiver, Wilmington Regional Office w/ attachments
Gale Stenberg, Wilmington Regional Office w/ attachments
File DV 03-048, w/ attachments
Central Files %v/ attachments
Public Information Office w/ attachments

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF _ Duplin
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ) WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
OF CiVIL.PENALTIES AGAINST ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
Coy Carter ) STIPULATION OF FACTS
FILE NO. - DV 03-048
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling _ $9 112.50 _ for violation(s) as set forth in the assessment document of the Director of the Division of Water Quality dated January 12,
2004 , 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.
The undersigned further understands that all evidence presented in support of remission of
this civil penalty must be submitted to the Director of the Division of Water Quality within thirty
(30) days of receipt of the civil penalty assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission
request will be allowed after thirty (30) days from the receipt of the civil penalty assessment.
This the day of , 20—
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE

JUSTIFICATION FOR REAUSSION REQUEST
DWQ Case Number: DV 03-048 County: Duplin
Assessed Party: Coy Carter
Permit No. (if applicable): NCA231160 Amount Assessed: $9,112.50
Please use this form when requesting remission of this civil penalty. You must also complete the
"Request For Remission, Waiver of Right to an Administrative Hearing, and Stipulation of
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 evaluating -
your request for remission_ Please be aware that a request for remission is limited to
consideration of the five factors listed below as they may relate to the reasonableness of the
amount of the 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. Pursuant to N.C.G_S. § 143B-282.1(c),
remission of a civil penalty may be granted only 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 penaIty assessment factors in_N-C.G.S. 143B-282.1(b)
were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are 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 prepare for);
(d) the violator had not been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) Qavment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions (i.e., explain how pay7nent of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing
the activities necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DUPLIN
IN THE MATTER OF )
COY CARTER )
FOR MAKING AN OUTLET TO THE )
WATERS OF THE STATE OF }
NORTH CAROLINA WITHOUT A PERMIT)
AND PERMIT CONDITION VIOLATIONS )
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
FILE NO. DV 03-048
FINDINGS AND DECISION
AND ASSESSMENT OF
CIVIL PENALTIES
Acting pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the Director of the Division of Water Quality, I, Jeffrey
O. Poupart, Supervisor of the Non -Discharge Compliance and Enforcement Unit of the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ), make the following:
I. FLNDINGS OF FACT:
A. Coy Carter owns and operates Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 & 2, a swine animal
operation located along SR 1737 in Duplin County-
B. Coy Carter was issued Certificate of Coverage NCA231160 under Swine Waste
Management System General NPDES Permit NCA200000 on April 9, 2003 for
the operation of an animal waste collection, treatment, storage, and application
system. This permit does not allow the discharge of waste to waters of the State.
C. Condition I. 1. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 states in part "The waste
collection, treatment, storage and application system operated under this permit
shall be effectively maintained and operated as a non -discharge system to prevent
the discharge of pollutants to surface waters or wetlands." V
D. On Saturday, June 28, 2003, a complaint regarding animal waste in Stockinghead
Creek was received on the answering machine of a DWQ staff member.- On
Monday, June 30, 2003, DWQ staff conducted an inspection of Carter & Sons
Hoc, Farm 1 & 2 and observed ponded waste in a ditch adjacent to a spray field.
Staff observed that waste had flowed via the ditch and discharged to an unnamed
tributary to Stockinghead Creek. Stockinghead Creek are Class C Sw waters of
the State within the Cape Fear River Basin.
E. Cov Carter had no valid permit for the above -described activity.

F. Condition No. I L 11. f. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 requires that the
Permittee shall report by telephone to the appropriate Regional Office as soon as
possible, but in no case more than 24 hours following first knowledge of the
occurrence of overapplying animal waste either in excess of the limits set out in
the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP) or where runoff enters
surface waters.
G. During the inspection on June 30ei, the operator in charge of the animal waste
system stated to staff that he observed the runoff on June 28'h and did not report it
to DWQ. Coy Carter failed to notify DWQ of the discharge of wastewater within
the required 24 hours after discovery.
H. Condition I L 6. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 states in part "The Permittee shall
record all irrigation and land application events including hydraulic loading rates,
nutrient loading rates and cropping information...."
L Condition III. 10. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 states in part "All records
required by this permit and the facility's CAWMP, including but not limited to
soil and waste analysis, rain gauge readings, freeboard levels, but
and land
application event(s) . _ _ shall be readily available for inspection."
J. During the inspection, DWQ staff requested the records of the irrigation event.
The operator stated to staff that he did not have records of the irrigation event.
K_ Condition H. L of NPDES Permit NCA200000 states "The collection, treatment,
and storage facilities, and the land application equipment and fields shall be
properly operated and maintained at all times."
L. During the inspection, staff observed that last year's crop had not been harvested
and that there were excessive weeds in the spray fields. The weed problem was
noted during inspections in June and October 2002 and farm representatives were
informed of it.
M. Condition IL 11. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 states in part "Trees, shrubs, and
other woody vegetation shall not be allowed to grow on the lagoon storage pond
embankments. ... Lagoon/waste storage pond areas shall be accessible, and
vegetation shall be kept mowed."
N. Staff observed that the vegetation on the lagoon embankments had not been
mowed and kept accessible. This problem was noted during the inspections in
June and October 2002 and farm representatives were informed of it.

O. Condition III. 15. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 states in part "In the event of a
discharge of 15,000 gallons or more of animal waste to surface waters or
wetlands, a public notice is required in addition to the press release described in
Condition IM 14.... A copy of all public notices and proof of publication must be
sent to the Division within thirty (30) days of the discharge. The minimum
content of the notice is the location of the discharge, estimated volume,
identification of the surface water or wetland affected, steps taken to prevent
future discharges and a phone number and contact name."
P. ' Based on staff's observation of the lagoon level, the flow rates of the spray guns,
the amount of time the guns operated, and the volume of waste observed in the
unnamed tributary two days after the irrigation event, staff estimated the total
volume of the discharge at 20,000 gallons. -
Q. DWQ has not received copies of any public notices nor proof of publication of the
notices.
R. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures in this matter totaled $612.50.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I snake the following:
H. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Coy Carter is a "person" within the meaning of G.S. 143-215.6A pursuant to G.S.
143-212(4).
B. The unnamed tributary to Stockinghead Creek constitutes waters of the State
within the meaning of G.S_ 143-215.1 pursuant to G.S. 143-212(6).
C. The above -cited discharge constituted making an outlet to waters of the State for
purposes of G.S. 143-215.1(a)(1), for which a permit is required by G.S. 143-
215.1.
D. Coy Carter 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 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.
E. Coy Carter violated Condition No. III. 11. f. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by
failing to report by telephone to the appropriate Regional Office as soon as
possible, but in no case more than 24 hours following first knowledge of the
occurrence of runoff entering surface waters.
F. Coy Carter violated Condition No_ 111. 10. of `PDES Permit NCA200000 by
failing to make available records of the irrigation event on Tune 28, 2003.

G_ Coy Carter violated Condition No. 11. 1. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing
to properly maintain the land application spray fields as evidenced by excessive
weed growth.
H. Coy Carter violated Condition No. II. 11. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by
failing to keep the vegetation mowed on the lagoon embankments.
L Coy Carter violated Condition No. I L 15. of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by
failing to provide a copy of all public notices and proof of publication within
thirty days of the discharge.
_J. Coy Carter 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 may be assessed against a person who
fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a permit
required by G.S. 143-215.1.
K. The State's enforcement costs in this matter may be assessed against Coy Carter
pursuant to G.S. 143-215.3(a)(9) and G.S. 143B-282.1(b)(8).
L. The Supervisor of the Non -Discharge Compliance and Enforcement Unit,
Division of Water Quality, pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Director of the
Division of Water Quality, has the authority to assess civil penalties in this matter.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I snake the following:
III. DECISION:
Accordingly, Coy Carter is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
0 for making an outlet to the waters of the State without a
permit as required by G.S. 143-215.1
S t 0 00 for violating Condition No. M. 11. f. of NPDES Permit
' NCA200000 by failing to report by telephone to the
appropriate Regional Office as soon as possible, but in no
case more than 24 hours following first knowledge of
runoff entering surface waters
S S'J J for violating Condition No. III. I0. of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 by failing to make available records of the
spray irrigation event

$ 0� Ci
for violating Condition No. II. 1. of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 by failing to properly maintain the land
application fields
for violating Condition No. II. 11. of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 by failing to keep the vegetation mowed on
the Iagoon embankments
$
for violating Condition No. III. 15. of NPDES Permit
/
NCA200000 by failing to provide a copy of all public
notices and proof of publication within thirty days of the
discharge
$� f„�D __
TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY
$ 612.50
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 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;
(8) The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures.
(Date) e0. Poupart, Supervisor
%lion -Discharge Compliance and Enforcement Unit
Division of Water Quality

IS
FEB 1 z 2004
RICHARD L. BURROWS
FREDRIC C. HALL
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714
BURROW5 & HALL
ATTORNEY5 AT LAW
317 NORTH NORWOOD 5TREET
P.D. BOX 816
WALLACE. NC 28466
February 5, 2004
Re: Coy Carter v. NCDENR
Dear Sir/Madam:
TELEPHONE (910) 2B5-3600
FACSIMILE (910) 2g5-7766
CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN
RECEIPT REQUESTED, ARTICLE
NO. 7002 2410 0006 5667 0156
F L✓'
r E8 0 9 Z011"
In connection with the above, please find enclosed the Petition for Administrative Hearing,
and two copies, which I would appreciate your filing and returning the filed copy to me in the
enclosed envelope.
By a copy of this letter, I am forwarding copies of the Petition to all interested parties.
Thanking you for your assistance, I am
Very t yours,
Richard L. Burrows
RLB:raj -
cc- Dan Oakley (Certified mail, article number 7002 2410 0006 5667 0163)
Keith Larick (Certified mail, article number 7002 2410 0006 5667 0170)
Coy Carter
Enclosures

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DUPLIN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FILE NO: 04 EHR
IN THE MATTER OF J
COY CARTER ]
]
FOR MAKING AN OUTLET TO THE ]
WATERS OF THE STATE OF NORTH J
CAROLINA WITHOUT A PERMIT ]
1
PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARING PURSUANT TO N.C.G.S. 150B-23
Now comes, Coy Carter,(hereafter "Petitioner"), by and through his counsel, Richard L.
Burrows, of the firm of Burrows & Hall, and respectfully petitions the Court for an Administrative
Hearing pursuant to the provisions ofN.C.G.S. §150B-23, and shows as follows:
1. That at all times pertinent to the matters in controversy, your Petitioner was the owner of
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 & 2, a swine operation located along SR 1737 in Duplin County, North
Carolina.
2. On the date in question in DENR File No. DV 03-048, Petitioner was lawfully operating
his swine facility in compliance with the applicable statutory rules and regulations_
3. Petitioner is informed and believes that only a minor amount of runoff occurred, and
Petitioner took immediate actions to remove any ponded waste from the ditch to stop runoff to
waters of the state. Any waste that could have occurred to waters of the state was contained. That
Petitioner was not aware of any waste in the ditches in question until advised by DWQ_ The DWQ
1

representative was already present on the farm, and any further notification would have been an
exercise in futility, in that the State then and there had full knowledge of anything that could have
been provided in any additional notice. DWQ's allegation that the operator in charge stated to DWQ
staff that he had noticed the runoff on June 28, 2003, is incorrect, as the operator in charge was out
of town on both June 28, 2003 and June 29, 2003, and could not have observed any runoff on either
of those dates.
4. Petitioner is informed and believed that there were only scattered.weeds located in the
spray fields and on the lagoon embankments, not an excessive weed problem as alleged by DWQ.
DWQ provided no objective standards for "excessive" weeds, and Petitioner is informed and believes
and alleges that there are no objective standards, by regulations or otherwise.
5. Petitioner's attorney sent a press release to a local publication, The Duplin Times, for
publication on July 10, 2003. Because of an error at the newspaper, and through no fault of the
Petitioner, the press release was not published. See Affidavit of Rebecca A. Jones attached (Exhibit
6. Petitioner is further informed and believes that the Findinas and Decision and Assessment
of Civil Penalties is legally erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, and is not supported by competent
evidence or facts, and the conclusions drawn therefrom are therefore legally improper_
7. The Director's Conclusions of Law are insufficient as a matter of law to support a penalty
assessment.
8. The assessed civil penalties, totalling S8,500.00, are not supported by competent evidence,
and incorrectly applied the statutory rules mandated by the legislature of the State ofNorth Carolina.
Petitioner is informed and believes that the Director did not properly consider the factors required
2

by N.C.G.S. §143-215.6A(c) and §143B-282, but arrived at the penalty assessments by use of a
mathematical formula applicable to a broad class of events, rather than a reasoned decision based
upon statutorily mandated factors. That this process neither procedurally nor substantively considers
or implements the requirements of § 143B-282(b).
9. There is no evidence of either any actual or reasonable costs associated with any
investigation, inspection or monitoring that resulted in the investigation of the alleged violation, or
of any actual or reasonable costs associated with the enforcement of the state regulations in this case
that would either justify or support the Director's conclusion and assessment of costs in the amount
of $612.50 in this case.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner, having disputed the findings and conclusions of law, as well
as the penalties and costs assessed by the Director in this case, respectfully requests an
Administrative Hearing, as provided by law.
Dated: February 5, 2004
BURROW
BY:--�
Richard L. Burrows
State Bar -rIrI 637
P. O. Box 816
Wallace, N. C. 28466
[phone]
Attorney for Petitioner
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard L. Burrows, of P.O. Box 816, Wallace, North Carolina, 28466, do hereby certify:
That I am at all times hereinafter mentioned, more than eighteen (18) years of age.
That on the date hereafter set out, I filed and served copies of the foregoing Petitioner for
Administrative Hearing on the following, by mailing copies by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
king.pet
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714
and
Mr. Dan Oakley, Registered Agent
Dept. Of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
and
Mr. Keith Larick
DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: February 5, 2004 r
Richard L_ Burrows
4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DUPLIN
I, Rebecca A. Jones, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows:
1. I am over eighteen years of age, and under no physical or mental disability which
would impair my ability to personally know and state the facts hereafter set out.
2_ I am a secretary to Richard L. Burrows, an attorney at law in Wallace, North Carolina.
2: On July 10, 2003, I prepared the Notification of Wastewater Spill in Duplin County,
North Carolina ("Notification") on behalf of Carter & Sons Hog Farms I & 2, a copy of which is
hereto attached as Exhibit "I". On that same day, I called the Duplin Times, a news publication with
offices located in Kenansville, NC, to let them know that we needed to publish the Notification of
Wastewater Spill, and asked for their telefax number so that I could transmit the Notification by
telefax for publication. I was informed that they did not accept legal ads by telefax, and that I would
have to email it in. I was given an email address of duplintirnesnewsiruearth]ink. net, and
immediately emailed the ad to the paper, a copy of send email transmission being hereto attached
as Exhibit " 2".
3. On October 31, 2003, 1 called the Duplin Times to inquire about the Affidavit of
Publication, as we had never received one. I was informed that they had never received nor
published the Notification. I asked for the email address again, and it was confirmed to me that the
email address that I had sent the Notification to was correct.
4. 1 never received a notice to our email inbox that the email sent to the Duplin Times
on July 10, 2003, was not received because of an error in the address.
Dated: February _ _, 2004

per
(SEAL)
Re ca Jon
SWORN.TO ANDS
SCRIBED
BEFORE ME THIS
AY OF
FEBRUARY, 2004_
64-�_
AV�e..
Notary Public
My Commission Expires. 12 ` 1-7 -" 7

1 Page 1 of 1
Burrows & Hail
From: "Burrows & Hall" <[e-mail]>
To: <duplintimesnews@earth link.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:09 PM
Attach: carte rspill. not rtf
Subject: Legal Ad. - Carter & Sons Hog Farms, Inc.
Please find attached legal ad, which I would appreciate your publishing in the next available issue. If you have
any questions, or need the ad to be re -transmitted, please call Rebecca @ 910-285-3600. Please direct any
billing statements to address indicated below.
Thank you for your assistance!
Burrows & Hall
P.O. Box 816
Wallace, NC 28466
[phone]
10/31 /03

ci/11—I/ O'T.-x? ,
NOTIFICATION OF WASTEWATER SPILL IN DUPLIN COUNTY
In accordance with House Bill 1160, the following news release has been prepared and issued to the media in the
affected county.
Carter & Sons Hog Farms, Inc. 1 & 2, a Duplin County, North Carolina, hog farm, allegedly had a wastewater spill
on June 30, 2003. The Division of Water Quality alleges that at least 20,000 gallons of wastewater was discharged
into a ditch adjacent to Stockinghead Creek, a tributary of the Northeast Cape Fear River. The farm owners have
taken steps to correct the alleged problems, including the removal of ponded waste out of the ditch to stop further
discharge to waters of the state. For further information, please contact Coy Carter, phone number [phone].

4 `
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, De uty Director
Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Lewis, Environmental Specialist II
Non -Discharge Compliance/Enforcement Unit
FROM: Gale Stenberg, Environmental Specialist II �AtWilmington Regional Office
THROUGH: Rick Shiver, Water Quality Regional Super -visor
Wilmington Regional Office
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Enforcement Report
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2
Facility Number: 31-160
Duplin County
DATE: November 12, 2003
Attached please find the subject enforcement report that concludes that Mr. Coy Carter:
• Violated Condition II.1 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to monitor a waste application
event;
• Violated Condition IIA of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by applying animal waste such that
ponding and runoff occurred;
• Violated North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 by discharging animal waste into the waters
of the State without a permit;
• Violated Condition III.I Lf of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to notify the State within
24 hours following first knowledge of the discharge;
• Violated Condition III.6 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to maintain records for this
application event;
• Violated Condition 11.2 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to maintain a vegetative cover
on the application fields in accordance with the CAWMP;
• Violated Condition IT- 11 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 for failing to keep the lagoon areas
accessible and vegetative growth mowed;
*A.
NCDENR
N.C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, N.C. 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] Customer Service
800-623-6748

Memorandum to Steve Lewis
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2 Enforcement Report
November 12, 2003
Page 2
• Violated Condition M.15 ofNPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to submit to the State a copy
of all public notices and proof that the public notification requirements were met.
A complaint that waste was seen in Stockinghead Creek was phoned in on Saturday, June
28, 2003 and recorded on Gale Stenberg's voice mail. On Monday, June 30, 2003 after reviewing
the recorded messages, an inspection was performed by staff from the Wilmington Regional Office,
Division of Water Quality. Staff was able to trace the waste spill back to its point of origin at Carter
& Sons Hog Farm 1 &2. Ponded waste and runoff waste from the farm was documented as still
discharging into Stockinghead Creek The total discharge volume is estimated at 20,000 gallons.
The estimation is based on the amount of waste pumped from the lagoon, erosion caused by the
discharge, flow rates of the two sprinkler heads, the amount of time that these sprinkler heads ran
in one spot and the amount of waste still present two days after the application event.
According to an eye witness, waste was being applied on Saturday June 28, 2003 in the lower
spray field. Two separate spray guns were being used to apply the waste. After the spray guns
retrieved all of their way into the reels or stop points, no one was there to shut off the system.
Because of this, the spray guns then continued to discharge waste next to the reels in the same spot
for three hours. This testimony matches the ponded waste and runoff found on Monday, June 30,
2003. When questioned, the operator admitted to having left the farm to go into town and admitted
that he did not come back until much later. He also stated that he observed the ponding and runoff
and did nothing about it.
The operator also did not notify the State as required about the discovery of the ponded
waste, runoff and discharge.
When asked during the inspection for the records that document this spray event, the operator
admitted that he did not have and had not kept any written records.
Field crops had also not been properly managed. Last years crops were still standing in the
field which hinders the new crop growth. Excessive weed growth also hindered the new crop
growth.
The lagoon dike walls had also not been maintained. As shown in photograph # 12 & 13, the
vegetative growth growing around the lagoon had not been mowed. This deficiency was also
identified in last years annual inspection report form.
Finally, this office has not received any proof that the Public Notification Requirements have
been met. In the inspection report dated June 30, 2003 one of the things listed as a reminder was the
the public notification requirements and the requirement to notify the State within 30 days that the
public notification requirements were met.

Memorandum to Steve Lewis
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2 Enforcement Report
November 12, 2003
Page 3
It is recommended that appropriate civil penalties be assessed in accordance with North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A(a)(2). It is also recommended that all of the enforcement costs
incurred in the investigation be recovered in the amount of $620.01 pursuant to North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.3(a)(9) and N.C.G.S. 14313-282. 1 (b)(8).
If you have any questions, please contact me at 910-395-3900.
Attachments
cc: Wilmington Regional Office (Entire Enforcement Package)
S:1WQSIANI4ALSIduplin12003131-160 Carter

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF DUPLIN
IN THE MATTER OF
CARTER & SONS HOG FARM 1 &2
(FACILITY 31 - 160)
FOR VIOLATION OF NORTH CAROLINA
GENERAL STATUTE 143-215.1 FOR
MAKING AN OUTLET INTO WATERS
OF THE STATE
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
FILE NO. DV
}
FINDINGS AND DECISION
} AND ASSESSMENT OF
CIVIL PENALTIES
Acting pursuant to delegation provided by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources and the Director of the Division of Water Quality, I, Jeffery O. Poupart, Supervisor of the
Non -Discharge Compliance and Enforcement Unit of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), make the
following:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Mr. Coy Carter owns and operates the Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2, a swine animal
operation located along State Road 1737, west of Hwy 50 in Duplin County.
B. Mr. Coy Carter was issued Certificate of Coverage NCA231160 under Swine Waste
Management System General NPDES Permit NCA200000 issued pursuant to North Carolina
General Statute 143-215.1 on March 14, 2003 for the operation of an animal waste
collection, treatment, storage and application system.
C. Condition II. 1 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 states that, "The collection, treatment,
and storage facilities, and land application equipment and fields shall be maintained at all
times and properly operated at all times".
D. On June 30, 2003, Mr. Gale Stenberg and Mr. Stonewall Mathis of the Wilmington Regional
Office of the Division of Water Quality performed an inspection of Carter & Sons Hog Farm
1&2. It was discovered that as a result of an a application event that occurred on June 28,
2003, several violations to include a discharge occurred. Because the operator had left the
site, no one was left to properly maintain and operate the system.
E. Condition Il. 4 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 states that, " Land application rates shall
be in accordance with the CAWMP. In no case shall land application rates exceed the Plant
Available Nitrogen rate for the receiving crop or result in runoff during any given
application event."
F. Waste from this application event ponded on site and ran off into a ditch that borders the
farm property. Sample results confirmed that it was ponded waste still present on Monday,
two days after the application event.

G. North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 states that no person shall make an outlet into the
waters of the State without having obtained and abided by the appropriate permit.
H. Condition 1. 1 of NPDES Permit NCA 200000 states in part, "The animal waste collection,
treatment, storage and application system permitted under this permit shall be effectively
maintained and operated as a non -discharge system to prevent the discharge of pollutants
into surface waters, wetlands, or ditches."
Waste that ran off of the spray field into the ditch that borders the farm property, then
discharged into Stockinghead Creek. The discharge volume for this application event is
estimated at 20,000 gallons.
I Condition III. 11. f of NPDES Permit NCA200000 requires the Regional Office to be
notified as soon as possible, not to exceed 24 hours following first knowledge of the
occurrence of any failure of any component of the animal waste collection, treatment,
storage and land application system resulting in a discharge to surface waters.
K. The Division was not notified as required regarding the discovery of the discharge.
L. Condition IIL 6 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 that states in part that, "Records of all
irrigation and land application events shall be maintained on forms provided or approved
by the DWQ and shall be readily available for inspection".
M. When asked for the records that documented this spray event, the operator stated that he did
not have any written records. The operator admitted to having applied waste and admitted
to having failed to record the spray event.
N. Condition M 2 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 states in part that, "A vegetative cover
shall be maintained on all land application fields in accordance with the CAWAV".
O. Last years crops were still standing in the field and had not been harvested. The field also
contained excessive weed growth. These two problems significantly hindered new crop
growth which limits the amount of nitrogen that the plant growth can use.
P. Condition II. 11 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 states in part that, "trees, shrubs, and
other woody vegetation shall not be allowed to grow on the lagoon/waste storage pond
embankments. Lagoon/waste storage pond areas shall be accessible, and vegetation shall
be kept mowed".
Q. As listed in the 2002 annual inspection report form and as found in this current
investigation, the lagoons had not been kept accessible and the vegetation around the
lagoons had not been mowed this year. This deficiency was also identified in last years
annual inspection report form
R. Condition IH.15 of the NPDE S Permit NCA200000 states, "A copy of all public notices and
proof of publication must be sent to the Division within thirty (30) days of the discharge".
S. This office has not received any proof that the public notification requirements have been
met.

T. Mr. Coy Carter had no valid permit for the above described activity
U. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures in this matter totaled $612.50.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
H. - CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Mr. Coy Carter is a "person" within the meaning of G.S. I43-215.6A pursuant to G.S. 143-
212(4).
B. A permit for an animal waste management system is required by G.S. 143-215.1
C. Mr. Coy Carter violated Condition H.1 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to
monitor and properly operate the waste land application equipment.
D. Mr. Coy Carter violated Condition II.4 ofthe NPDES Permit NCA200000 by applying waste
at rates which resulted in ponding and runoff.
E. Stockinghead Creek is waters of the State within the meaning of G.S. 143-215.1(a)(1)
pursuant to G.S. 143-212(6).
F. The above -cited discharge constitutes making an outlet into waters of the State for purposes
of G.S. 143-215(a)(1), for which a permit is required by G.S. 143-215.1.
Mr. Coy Carter violated Condition I. I ofNPDES Permit NCA200000 by applying waste that
resulted in a discharge into waters of the Stockinghead Creek.
G. Mr. Coy Carter violated Condition M. 11. f of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to
report by telephone to the appropriate Regional Office as soon as possible, but in no case
more than 24 hours following first knowledge of the occurrence of any failure of any
component of the animal waste collection, treatment, storage and land application system
resulting in a discharge to surface waters.
H. Mr. Coy Carter violated Condition III.6 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to
maintain records for this application event.
I. Mr. Coy Carter violated Condition 11.2 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to
maintain a vegetative cover on the application fields in accordance with the CAWMP.
Mr. Coy Carter violated Condition II.11 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 by failing to
keep the lagoon areas accessible and vegetative growth mowed.
K. Mr. Coy Carter violated Condition III.15 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 by.failing to
submit t o t he S tate a c opy o f a 11 p ublic n otices a nd p roof t hat t he p ublic n oti fication
requirements were met.

L. Mr. Coy Carter 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) 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, or who violates or fails to act in
accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of such permit.
M. The State's enforcement costs in this matter may be assessed against Coy Carter pursuant
to G.S. 143-215.3(a)(9) and G.S. 143B-282.1(b)(8).
N. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-215.6A, the Secretary of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources has the authority to issue civil penalties in this matter. The Secretary
has delegated this authority to the Director of DWQ Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 143B-10.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I make the following:
III. DECISION:
Accordingly, Mr. Coy Carter is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
S for of one violation of Condition II.1 of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 by failing to monitor and properly operate the waste
land application equipment.
$ for of one violation of Condition 111.4 of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 by applying animal waste such that ponding and
runoff occurred.
$ for of one violation of G.S. 143-215.1 for discharging animal
waste into the waters of the State without a permit.
$ for of one violation of Condition M. 11. f of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 by failing to report by telephone to the appropriate
Regional Office as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24
hours following first knowledge of the occurrence of any failure of
any component of the animal waste collection, treatment, storage
and land application system resulting in a discharge to surface
waters.
for of one violation of Condition U1. 6 of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 for failing to maintain records for this application
event.
$ for of one violation of Condition II.2 of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 for failing to maintain a vegetative cover on the
application fields in accordance with the CAWMP.
for of one violation of Condition H.1 I of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 for failing to keep the lagoon areas accessible and
vegetative growth mowed.

for of one violation of Condition 111.15 of NPDES Permit
NCA200000 by failing to submit to the State a copy of all public
notices and proof that the public notification requirements were
met.
$ TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY, which is percent of the
maximum penalty authorized by G.S. 143-215.6A.
$ 612.50 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.l(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) Jeffrey O. Poupart, Supervisor
Non -Discharge Compliance and Enforcement Unit
Division of Water Quality

Violator:
Contact Person:
Address:
Facility #:
Receiving Stream:
Classification:
Regional Office:
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
ANIMAL OPERATIONS
ENFORCEMENT CASE REPORT
Mr. Coy Carter
Mr. Coy Carter _
668 Rivenbank Town Rd, Wallace, NC 28466
31-160
Stockinghead Creek
Stockinghead Creek is Class C Sw Waters of the State
Wilmington
Inspectors: Gale Stenberg / Stoney Mathis
Report Prepared By: Gale Stenberg
Case Narrative:
A complaint that waste was seen in Stockinghead Creek was phoned in on Saturday, June 28, 2003
and -recorded on Gale Stenbergs voice mail. On Monday, June 30, 2003 after reviewing the recorded
messages, an inspection was performed by staff from the Wilmington Regional Office, Division of
Water Quality. Staff was able to trace the waste spill back to its point of origin at Carter & Sons Hog
Farm 1 &2. Ponded waste and runoff waste from the farm was documented as still discharging into
Stockinghead Creek The total discharge volume is estimated at 20,000 gallons. The estimation is
based on the amount of waste pumped from the lagoon, erosion caused by the discharge, flow rates
of the two sprinkler heads, the amount of time that these sprinkler heads ran in one spot and the
amount of waste still present two days after the application event.
According to an eye witness, waste was being applied on Saturday June 28, 2003 in the lower spray
field. Two separate spray guns were being used to apply the waste. After the spray guns retrieved
all of their way into the reels or stop points, no one was there to shut off the system. Because of this,
the spray guns then continued'to discharge waste next to the reels in the same spot for three hours.
This testimony matches the ponded waste and runoff found on Monday, June 30, 2003. When
questioned, the operator admitted to having left the farm to go into town and admitted that he did
not come back until much later. He also stated that he observed the ponding and runoff and did
nothing about it.
The operator also did not notify the State as required about the discovery of the ponded waste, runoff
and discharge.
When asked during the inspection for the records that document this spray event, the operator
admitted that he did not have and had not kept any written records.
Field crops had also not been properly managed. Last years crops were still standing in the field
which hinders the new crop growth. Excessive weed growth also hindered the new crop growth_
The lagoon dike walls had also not been maintained. As shown in photograph #12 & 13, the

vegetative growth growing around the lagoon had not been mowed. This deficiency was also
identified in last years annual inspection report form.
Finally, this office has not received any proof that the Public Notification Requirements have been
met. In the inspection report dated June 30, 2003 one of the things listed as a reminder was the the
public notification requirements and the requirement to notify the State within 30 days that the public
notification requirements were met.
Farm and/or Company Compliance History: Include a copy of CAFO Designation letters,
previous NOV's, NOD's previous civil assessments, etc.
A Notice of Violation dated March 31, 1997 was issued for failing to designate an Operator for the
facility.
Amount of Waste Discharge (if applicable). If amount cannot be estimated, what is the rate
of flow reaching surface water.
Based on the amount of waste pumped from the lagoon, erosion caused by the discharge, flow rates
of the two sprinkler heads, the amount of time that these sprinkler heads ran in one spot and the
amount of waste still present two days after the application event it is estimated that the volume of
waste discharged into Stockinghead Creek is 20,000 gallons.
Sample Results (If applicable) with locations of samples taken noted in relation to the
discharge point:
The results are as follows:
DP (Discharge Point) Lab ID# 8620
Ditch C Lab ID# 8621
Ditch 2 Lab ID# 8622
C Up (Up Stream) Lab ID# 8623
C Down (Down Stream) Lab ID# 8624
2,100,000 Fecal Coliform, colonies/100 mL
141,440 Fecal Coliform, colonies/100 mL
83,640 Fecal Conform, colonies/100mL
7,820 Fecal Coliform, colonies/100mL
124,550 Fecal Coliform, colonies/100mL
Sample "DP" was taken at the discharge point from the application field to the ditch that borders the
field and then discharges into Stockinghead Creek (see photo 1, 2, 3 & 4). Sample "Ditch C" was
taken from waste that had discharged into the ditch (see photo 5 & 6). Sample "Ditch 2" was taken
from waste that had discharged into the ditch right before it discharges into the creek (see photo 8).
Sample "C Up" was taken up stream from the point were the field ditch was discharging into
Stockinghead Creek (see photo 7). Sample "C Down" was taken from Stockinghead Creek down
stream from the point were the field ditch discharges into the creek (see photo 9 & 10). (Also see
attached maps and diagrams.)

Violator's de ree of cooperation(including efforts to prevent or restore recalcitrance:
The violator failed to monitor spraying activities. After starting up the system, the operator left the
facility with no one left to watch over the application event. The spray guns pumped waste over the
application area, pulled all of their way into the reels or stop points and then continued pumping at
the stop points for three hours before anyone came back to checked on the system or to turn off
pump. Even after turning off the system, nothing was done to minimize the amount ofwaste flowing
into Stockinghead Creek, nothing was done to clean up ponded waste still present at the site and the
State was also not notified of the discharge.
During the inspection, the owner was also required to perform public notification and then submit
proof that the public notification requirement was met to the State. To date no proof that the public
notification requirement has been met has been submitted to this office.
Other maintenance problems were also observed and documented. Field crops had not been properly
managed. Last years crops were still standing in the fields. This inhibits new crop growth which
limits the amount of nitrates that can be used by the new growth. The lagoon dike walls had also not
been maintained as required even after being listed as a violation in last years inspection report form.
Fish kill observed? YIN If yes, include report from WRC:
No fish kill was observed at the time of the inspection. The inspection was performed two days after
the initial event so it would be doubtful that any such evidence would still be present.
Mitigating Circumstances:
No mitigating circumstances.
Recommendation:
The Wilmington Regional Office is recommending assessment of civil penalties to the Director of
the Division of Water Quality pursuant to G.S. 143-215.6A.
Assessment Factors required to be considered by G.S. 143B-282.1 b :
1. The degree and extent of harm to the natural resources of the State, to the public
health, or to private property resulting from violation:
The animal waste discharge caused elevated levels of fecal coliform and nutrients in the
waters of the State. These pollutants can be detrimental to the use and ecology of the
receiving waters.

2. The duration and gravity of the violation:
I estimate the duration of the discharge to be greater than two days. The discharge started
on Saturday, June 28, 2003 and because no effort was made to clean up the ponded waste or
stop waste from flowing into the creek, waste was still entering these waters on Monday,
June 30, 2003.
This is a serious violation. The operator failed to adequately monitor his application and as
a result runoff and discharge of animal waste into the waters of the State occurred. The
operator then failed to clean up or stop the flow of waste from hitting surface waters after
finding that the reels had pumped in one spot for an excessive amount of time. The operator
also failed to notify the State of the violation.
3. The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality:
The effect on surface water quality is documented under the sample results that are shown
above. The effects on ground water are not documented or known. The effect on air quality
is unknown.
4. The cost of rectifying the damage:
The damage that was done by the animal waste that reached waters of the State cannot be
rectified and the cost is unknown.
5. The amount of money saved by noncompliance:
The amount of money saved by noncompliance may be that amount of money that it would
cost to ensure that staff are properly trained and to ensure that there is a sufficient amount
of staff to perform sufficient monitoring of the application activities to ensure that runoff and
discharge of animal waste into the waters of the State does not occur. This amount of money
is unknown to me.
6. Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally:
The operator did not perform sufficient monitoring of the irrigation event to ensure proper
application of animal waste and prevent runoff and discharge. After finding that the reels
had pumped on one spot for an excessive amount of time nothing was done to clean up the
ponded waste or to stop waste from running off into Stockinghead Creek. The operator then
failed to notify the State of the discharge event. The operator admitted to pumping on this
date but had no written record for the event. Field crops had not been managed properly.
Last years crops had not been harvested. The lagoon dike walls had also not been managed
properly. Vegetative growth around the lagoon had not been mowed this year. Finally,
public notification requirements were not fulfilled as required.
I believe that these violations demonstrate a continuous willful intent.

7. The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply with programs over
which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority:
A Notice of Violation was issued on March 31, 1997 for failing to have an Operator
designated.
8. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures:
The State's enforcement costs totaled $612.50, as follows:
Staff, Stenherg 18 hours @ $19.55/hour $351.90
Pictures 13 @ $0.25 each $ 3.25
Samples 5 Fecal @ $20.00/sample $100.00
Mileage 186 miles @ $0.31/mile $ 57.35
Administrative Costs 1$. 00.00
Total $612.50

LEU �wl
Iiij a W. r
J)'k,
JV
ILI Lacl NY
a If
wI / P._.1
Cb!-t 1 L
2 01
uz
Lvi. All Pat
Im ..a
Imw am J 0 N E S
oil'
aw RA I His 'N, C 0 U N
Liu
•
. I La-
luo P6
0 LW 10 COWMI
ilk " a un
a Mik fi lo
p~
c Ili.
.6i. Has
v T 6�44. U.111
61
1.5 Lta
UmANsviLLE ILI
YM
Ile
!a. lilt
Im in
14) j -1 13 \ %
Iul
ItIl as$: T, ILLInk
L
tit 1� :-. . 4.5
an I
\nk)
IQ
fioli.v IA
lin ILI&
Lus UK M11T Ltu loss U11
Aal 1.1;Lai U;
Lilt LM LiSLI
a"
im A. Mal 6.
all All I -a
im IA 1"I
ilia• pill lips 221. lui 'rIU0041
List Iyu
mi
Ink
lilt Iliji all, .9 Ult,
Llit us UA lm I
w --\ i LILLS
't j C`llll`dl IZAA
Ila
ilia
na,
Ever
La' all
an an Liu Lit* • Im p P J.LAJ.-r LW
f. Jell k,144'
la
ILL!
J. Illy
lilt Ila'
lit.
U11 Im Up! LAR
lut " I to
1103 jal _S t.0 It: [fit ink
u 1i Ila I ilia
Ills" um
a. I ink - —,
V
q Liu
A it" loss it's OVY J,

5ons
Aog
Farm li
31 =1
.i
�Y -�� �,'.�' Discharge Po '` '_ cr - � �' ��,;� •��.,,'IP �� �'irx`
'tcii G
itch 2
'h

'7e Z
44
V7
PHOTO#1 Shows spray gun and reel on the Coy Carter Farm and the ditch that borders along the
property edge. Waste flowed down this ditch and then discharged into the stream (Stockinghead Creek),
that borders along the wood line in the back of the photo.
is
N %
76
C.
�
;1A -
LIS
Clio,
'A.
J
A V
PHOTO #2 Shows spray gun and reel on the Coy Carter Farm and the excessive weeds / poor condition
of the field crop.

..;... '.AI ':i," - ,F.�*
W Nil
14 M1MA
tAq
wo

PHOTO #4 Shows drainage tile which connects the Coy Carter farm spray field to the field edge ditch.
Also shows waste still ponded in the ditch from the dune 28, 2003 spray event.

1
J
f �1
.4 a }� ��r« i
.1 � •R
,�, i•{� .� 00,`• R�` �
��� `
F-4

f'
PHOTO #7 Shows Stockinghead Creek, upstream from where the field edge ditch discharges into the
creek water way.

-.s "",ter }.k,.�•� _ . � �'���- ...• '' ��.
- _ � r f" t" . Y ...y_ r� „max+� �}. i- _ � ` r
` z
f' K.,� I Y � ? , .
_ f _ �rr�,ia;
.r1 �.
�i� a

NXT-
41,
i . 1� ''• � � � E. i .: �J> � * Jc'd-�''4"Y'�•'?`r"�T73s.t. �'`� � - �?: i� ��. '- d - �r
f•/ i Shows 1Carter Farm spray
field.crophas notbeen
harvested or used as is
-equired by the WMP so that it nowinhibits 1 for 1/
L �i • �� •S..�tY Alt �� y'`" :i �o-a. �'. •^�, i y'� L_ d
' A
V Y.sl 4
' �• ''� ° `„ .. t�FY-� S 41 E ci 1t -b �Lr�Js!j �'; l ,r-.;.s-t i.
�- Y�r•-lrr-�% �.�1���'��'':i.tr� ./..�..t.... ,�•il; L' a Iff -: -s

ANALYTICAL & CONSULTING
CHEMISTS
Customer:
NCDENR-DWQ
127 N. Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attn: Stonewall Mathis
Date Sampled: 06/30/03
Sampled By: Stonewall Mathis
WARTRWATER:
Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way • Wilmington, North Carolina 2W5
[phone] (Lab) • [phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
NCDENR: DWQ CERTIFICATE #94, DLS CERTIFICATE #37729
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Date of Report: July 21, 2003
Purchase Order #:
Report Number: 3-3675
Report To: Stonewall Mathis
Project: 3 [ - ! 6 0
C" , C .- C.
PARAMETER
Sample ID
DP
Ditch C
Ditch 2
C Up
C Down
Lab ID
# 8620
# 8621
# 8622
# 8623
# 8624
Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen, NO3+NO2-N mg/L
9.40
0.54
1.72
25.4
0.17
Ammonia, NH3-N mg1L
34.5
239
74.3
5.0
372
Total Phosphorus, P mg/L
1.59
9.92
3.32
0.19
13.4
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN mg/L
52.6
288
89
7.3
448
Fecal Coliform, coioniies/100 mL
2,100,000
141,440
83,640
7820
124,550
Comments:
Reviewed by: car l 'z�Ca,

FT
# ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTS, INC
I-envirSamnle Collection and Chain of Custody
NCDENi7: DWQ Certificate 094, DLS Cerlificate 037729
Analytical & Consultingg Chemists
Client: �� r- tJ %' - D 21q
Collected B:'�- J o iicrw O/ 1 a S
Sample Tvne: ] = influent. E = Effluent. W =Well.=StreB4if. SO =Soil. SL= Sludge Other:
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email:EchemW(a aol.Com
Report No: --� - 5 (,P75
Sample Identification
Collection
o o
V
U�
U
a
PRESERVATION
ANALYSIS REQUESTED
z
x
p
n
Z.
O
o
DATE
TIME
TEMP
`D }-�
-5T
C
hh
,
r
jam-
�T
C
C e� )
GFe
rT
C
k 2-I
'
�41 �14r
G
0 4c 1, C
I
n
Fe c 1
ly
C
I1j
c/
V d�
ST
I
d
G
V Vv 1
�
�
! . V �• t -• rIC
wo n
sT
e 1
,C
NOTICE - DECHLORINATION : Samples for Ammonia, TKN, Cyanide, Phenol, and Bacteria must be dechlorinated
0.2 _pm or less in the field at the time of collection. See reverse side for instructions.
Transfer
Relinquished By:
Date/Time
Received By:
Date/Time
1.
.
2.
..
Temperature wh n Received: ,7 3 cC Acceptcd: ✓ Reje ed: Resanrple Requested:
Delivered By:r _ _ Received By: Date:U -l-r-o3 Time: 5-'73
Comments: 66Ce,-4cy-c�r►�►1 S J - iG�O

FMPORTAN T NOTICE
Noah Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is strictly enforcing EPA regulations for sarnpi cci;�-ction and
preservation.
Client Must Provide the Followin6 inforitatior'
1. SAMPLE IDENTF-ICATION (Container Associated wili requested testing)
2. SAMPLE TYPE (Composite, Crab, lv Tater, Soil, etc.)
3. DATE COLLECTED_ _
4. TIME COL+ ECTED
5. S_4NIPLE COLLECTOR
6. PRESERVATION (Including Temperature and pH)
Temperature: Samples MUST bs refrigerated o? received on ice between 2 and 6 ° C. - Samples received
wRthin two (2) hours of collection must show a downward trend. Therefore, ple: se record tmperaiture at
collection in space provided on collection sheet.
pH= a two (2) hour limit to chemically preserve samples by pH adjustment is allowed, except for men.?
samples reported to the Groundwater Section which must be acidified at the time of collection.
Caution
These sample bottles may contain small amounts of acid or other corrosive and potentially hmnful
chemicals. Laboratories are required to add these chemicals for certain analyses in order to comply
with EPA preservation requirements. Use extreme care when opening and handling the bottles. If
any chemical should get on your sldn or clothes flush liberally with water and seek medical attention.
DECHLORINATION INSTRUCTIONS
CAUTION: DO NOT Mix thiosulfate with acid in bottle before collecting samples as a
violent reaction will occur.
Dechlorinating Samples that Rtguire Acid Preservation
1. Add 4-5 granules of thiosulfate to a bottle with no acid preservative (unpreserved BOD/TSS bottle).
2. After mixing to dissolve the thiosulfatc, pour half of the sample into a bottle containing acid as a
preservative (AmmonialTKN).
3. Then completely fill both bottlesmith fresh sample-
The Laboratory will verify and document the aboverequested information.
ref NCAC 21-1,0805 (a) (7)M ..
"At any time a laboratory receives samples which do not meet sample collection, holding time, or preservation
requirements, the laboratory must notify the sample collector or client and secure another sample if possible. if another
sample cannot be secured, the original sample may be analyzed, but the results reported must be qualified with the nature
of the infraction(s). And the laboratory must notify the State Laboratory about the infraction(s). The notification, must
include a statement indicating corrective actions taken to prevent the problem for -future samples.
ref- NCAC 2H.0805 a

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit O Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification ZOther ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit:
® Permitted MCertifiied Q Conditionally Certified [3 Registered
Farm Name:d-
Owner dame: ( V
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: fl-'/4l1
Date Last Operated amn Above Threshold:
Phone No:
Nf
Phone No:
Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
AL
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' ° K Longitude ' °
�4FDestgn *Ctirrent.n; Design .Current=1`< aDesrgtir
Curi�en't
�' .,
Poultry�.Ca acitvr :Pa ulalitiorh"Cattle ` $;4�>:Ca aciPo Mahon
❑ La er ❑ Dairy
❑Non -La er ram" ❑Non-Dai
,
�'
.;❑Other
M..
h �
�� r� ��' Total Design Capac>ty
.
y
�s
z
s Total SSLW
x
- ' y F..r' ^E�: xs LY�L'�- ck� i:.•tb -y- y&, y,,;+r+l,w .I .kf�
Y
w �: ❑
wts _ S b f D P t ❑ L
n sur ace rams resen Lagoon Area
r of Lagns �ti
- x - .i,f - - - ---- - - -- - --- -.
ray lC Area
S Field
Holdrng Ponds,/ Soltd�Traps 4
❑ No Liquid Waste Management Systemk
^`
��-�:;t'Ca
,
N-
aci ����Po' uiahon
Wean to FeederFeeder
toFarrow
EQ
to Wean
❑Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑Gilts
Boars
Discharr�es & tream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon M Spray Field ❑Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection &Treatment
4, Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? El Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
Time:
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[--]Yes
❑ No
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ��
05/03/01 � Continued

Facility Number: — A0
M
Date of Inspection �3l�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stucrures lack adequate, gauged markers whth required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markines? V
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of over application? Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN � Hydraulic Overload
12_ Crop type
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
0 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application! El Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a -,venable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
I5. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ,Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17. Pail to have Certificate of Covera'ae & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(1e/ WUP, checklists, design. maps. etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie' irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22_ Fail to notifjr regional DWQ of emergency simations as required by General Permit?
(ie% discharge. freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Did Reviewer.`inspector fail to discuss review•iinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
ElYes
❑ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit You will receive no 'further carresporidence about this visit.
Commenis [fit efer fo aests"ain $� ' E ]ata;piji YES answeis and/oriui yteca & dAtli6i ors �v �e mme_nts. - �
�"S ,. ^i. y�,...�'�7i
r --.,� - _
lise drawings o€ facility. to better explain situations (use addr�onal pages' is raecesjs _T ' � 0 Field Copy Final Notes
/tis���l r�� S ��✓j�/i/r i k /e S�OdnfG � C ohlpj�'h jG `��`' CvG�. �s Solr���1� it � c.�,i�T
5�l� � � ���' Z r�ls �v��pGC W45{Z a iI (�✓`lL��i?i.i'1 7�l 3�df' �FT�✓ �Ci�jy-�`'1!
fl 16,'- AfTc v /�h `I ll �isiil�: JhiS�v/X/%h� e, ✓Cr1y-—
�
Reviewer/Ins ector Name's
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: /l ate: 11
Conuaued

Facility Number: 3 — Date of inspection !% d
Odor Issues
26_ Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there anv evidence of wind drift during land application? O.e_ residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt.
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts. missing or
or broken fan biade(s). inoperable shutters. etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover? .
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ )'es Ci No
❑Yes El No
lie cc,� o 411'0"'' !//G
-- �f�-z �o��t� L✓�S� ly�S 7vurK �., 7si� d�'><�t �/dr.� �� G ,r�prxr
�-7?i IW7f
P
7
e ,Pl %7a; P ger
4tie �e I� r,;A"! ivns4e -1n
t.,►�. rs d�' �l,e A?4e is` el� lezv� ZD�'ndD �e�l/ons . Fub1 C
l�E�sp�ro��-r �,5 >r'Ee� v;red. Th;s nog f r•n- �nj-, r1U.11 , n Gl vAe
2,00 000 O� Ito s, -the W44e v- beI4� 0,'rie c-ieel CSao,-k;n Jd 6/ia2
A,fr 4olqrevc,,,f ,r'v d rc�,ws �, e?r,z( e, P110=1e n v-Ibevl -Jc;,
4'Z3'1441G4 Y1el^1e,
05103101

,4-1f , - � 4,t4.e- r%O-A
f
pie
ct,
IIT�
11 ji-I
k
I i i..,. ,
FA
(11

Michael F. Easley, Governor
. William G. Ross Jr., 5erretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E., Director
Division of Water Quality
April 9, 2003
Coy Carter
Carter & Sons Hoc: Farm 1 &2
668 Rivenbank Town Rd
Wallace NC 28466
Subject: Certificate of Coverage No. NCA231160
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment,
Storage and Application System
Duplin County
Dear Coy Carter:
On March 14, 2003, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (Division) issued an NPDES General
Permit for swine facilities. The General Permit was issued to enable swine facilities in North Carolina to
obtain coverage under a single permit that addresses both State and Federal requirements.
In accordance with your application received on January 28. 2003. we are hereby forwarding to you this
Certificate of Coverage (COC) issued to Coy Carter, authorizing the operation of the subject animal waste
collection, treatment, storage and land application system in accordance with NPDES General Permit
NCA200000. The issuance of this COC supercedes and terminates your COC Number AWS310160 to
operate under State Non -Discharge Permit AWGIQ0000.
This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including. but not Limited to, the management
of animal waste from the Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1&2, located in DuplinCounty, with an animal
capacity of no greater than an annual average of 8568 Feeder to Finish swine and the application to land
as specified in the facility's Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP). If this is a Farrow to
Wean or Farrow to Feeder operation, there may also be one boar for each 15 sows. Where boars are
unneccessary, they may be replaced by an equivalent number of sows. Any of the sows may be replaced
by Gilts at a rate of 4 gilts for every 3 sows
The COC shall be effective from the date of issuance until July 1, 2007. Pursuant to this COC, you are
authorized and required to operate the system in conformity with the conditions and limitations as
specified in the General Permit, the facility's CAWMP, and this COC. An adequate system for collecting
and maintaining the required monitoring data and operational information must be established for this
facility. Any increase in waste production greater than the certified design capacity or increase in number
of animals authorized by this COC (as provided above) will require a modification to the CAWW and
this COC and must be completed prior to actual increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
Please carefully read this COC and the enclosed General Permit. Since this is a new joint State and
Federal general permit it contains many new requirements in addition to most of the conditions contained
in the current State general permit. Enclosed for your convenience is a package containing the new and
revised forms used for record keeping and reporting. Please pALcareful attention to the record kee in
and monitoring conditions in this rmir. The Devices to Automaticall Stop Irrigation Events Form
must be returned to the Division of Rater Quality no later than 120 days following receipt of the
Certificate of Coverage. The Animal Facility Annual Certification Form must be completed and returned
to the Division of Water Quality by no later than March 1st of each year.
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Customer Service Center
An Equal opportunity Action Employer
Internet httpJ/h2o.enr.state.nc.usindpu
Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Telephone [phone]
50% recycled/10 ro post -consumer paper

If your Waste Utilization Plan has been developed based on site specific information, careful evaluation
of future samples is necessary. Should your records show that the current Waste Utilization PIan is
inaccurate you will need to have a new Waste Utilization Plan developed.
The issuance of this COC does not excuse the Permittee from the obligation to comply with all applicable
laws. rules, standards, and ordinances (local, state, and federal), nor does issuance of a COC to operate
under this permit convey any property rights in either real or personal property.
Upon abandonment or depopulation for a period of four years or more, the 'Permittee must submit
documentation to the Division demonstrating that all current MRCS standards are met prior to restocking
of the facility.
Per 15A NCAC 2H .0225(c) a compliance boundary is provided for the facility and no new water supply
wells shall be constructed within the compliance boundary. Per NRCS standards a 100 foot separation
shall be maintained between water supply wells and any lagoon or any wetted area of a spray field.
Please be advised that any violation of the terms and conditions specified in this COC, the General Permit
or the CAWMP may result in the revocation of this COC, or penalties in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.6A through 143-215.6C, the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 122.41 including civil penalties, criminal
penalties, and injunctive relief.
If you wish to continue the activity permitted under the General Permit after the.expiration date of the
General Permit_ an application for renewal must be filed at least 180 days prior to expiration.
This COC is not automatically transferable. A name/ownership change application must be submitted to
the Division prior to a name change or change in ownership.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this COC are unacceptable, you have the right to
apply for an individuaI NPDES Permit by contacting the staff member listed below for information on
this process. unless such a request is made within 30 days, this COC shall be final and binding.
This facility is located in a county covered by our Wilmington Regional Office. The Regional Office
Water Quality Staff may be reached at [phone]. If you need additional information concerning
this COC or the General Permit, please contact Sue Homewood at [phone] ext_ 502.
Sincerely,
for Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Enclbsures (Genera] Permit NCA200000, Record Keeping and Reporting Package)
cc: (Certificate of Coverage only for all cCs)
Duplin County Health Department
Wilmington Regional Office, Water Quality Section
Duplin County Soil and Water Conservation District
Permit File NCA231160
Permit File AWS310160
NDPU Files

4
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit •O Routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 6-21-2002 Time:
Facility Number 31 160
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted 13 Certified ® Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: .................... County: Duplial................................................ WjRQ.........
Owner Name: CoY........................... .............G.art> r............ Phone No: 91Q-2 S-445.6. j.Z9f-QI ..( 7. 85- 49.1f.
Mailing Address: KGB.xtmba�nlC.�a►�aa.�is1 ...............................
Facility Contact:..............................................................................Title:..................... Phone No:
..............................................................................................
Onsite Representative: I�X.,aul�T..(le�lt.Qu.�uR�lCgl:>asryi....................................... Integrator: Uurpby.Fajn ly..FRr.=.................---.-
Certified Operator:C.1a1!K................................... Carter............................................... Operator Certification Number:163.59 .............................
Location of Farm:
iouth of Kenansville. On East side of SR 1737. Site #1 is approx. 0.4 mile West of Hwy 50 and Site #2 is approx. 0.8 mile kAWest of Hwy 50.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse -Latitude 34 53 58 u Longitude 77 • 55 1 42 K
Design Current �+ :� `�Desigii' -F Design h:Curregt
� Swme� -: ' Ca aci >
YCurrent
Po uiation ' Coaci P6 ulation": `Catiie., ,, ',� Ca`tact '.Po ulation
„ _
❑ Wean to Feeder
..:`Pouixr3' ,r,= .
F.
Layer F ❑ Dairy r
®Feeder to Finish 8568
.:
;" ❑Nan -Layer -_ ❑Non -Dairy
❑06
Farrow to Wean
-�, < r
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other '; 7�
_.
` ❑Farrow to Finish
_
, r Total Deli' C8,568 apaaty: �i
I
❑ Gilts;
3 w k
M r Total SSLW -° 1,156,680
❑Boars
?� Number of Lagoons w 3� ti ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
- _ -. _ ._. _ _ _ __ -.
a Holding Ponds / Sohd Traps'
�r
. ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System J`'
r
�'• .Ti.N] ti.v?_ ti:l
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon. ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection &: Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Identifier: ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 26 30 36
05103101
Continued

Facility Number: 31-160
Date of Inspection 6-21-2QQ2
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Fescue Graze/Matua Small Grain Overseed Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21, Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. FaiI to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
g.. i§�'"Y R°',. �.�3f' µ�v� '•'=7i`'li'g'�ii��'''.�..�"a�.:%tr4¢F��Lq�<mAT�'if7l E.�r"a �T.4""'Y�y4'r'�3'�$"�5j"'.'!�:-'[_�s}fir X.�.'-.... -' y17�"�f... -.j$- .k
Cots(refertaaguinoRn�#)�rplaryn anyYyES anss�an,ar ano endahons or,anyoth�er- ents: `
Use drawingsyaof facilityato�tietter ezplarn sifuahons. (use.additronal°pages as necessary):n ❑Field Copy ❑ Finai Notes
7. Inside dike walls need to be mowed. A lot of bushes are growing. Suggest mowing at least twice during warmer months.
15. Pastures need weed constol. Suggest moving cows to the Fescue fuelds and apply some type of weed control methods to coastal
fields.
11,19,22,23 - Unable to answer questions since Mr. Carter had to leave on an emergency call and mistakenly took his irrigation records i
e vehicle.
*Make sure you follow your wettable acre pulls. Irrigation reels are not lined up properly in field # 4. Reels are lined up to pull
perpendicular to the wettable acre pulls shown on your map.
T
Reviewer/Inspector Name teiik' ` ' �x � � ' � Y `
p Patrick Fussell�,:enteredby�Bette Rased
,tom „u;s
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
O5103101
Continued

acility Number: 31-160 Date of Inspection 6-2i-2002
� 4
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during Iand application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
inspection is only a technical evaluation of your waste application system My comments are suggestions only. If you have
ans, please call 910-395-3900 ext 334 (Office) or 910-289-2429 (home).
05103101

Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 31 160 Date of Visit: 06/30/2003 Time: 12:20
,Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted E] Certified ® Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:... ......................
Farm Name: C�Irlll;Ir.. .Sams.Hog. ar�at.l 2.............................................................. County: D?uplliU............................................... 1'YjRQ.........
OwnerName:oY .............................. ........ CLCX.................................. . Phone No: .... ......................
Mailing Address: 6 .$..1jygjtba.nh.T Y.n.Rd............................ 'Y411u c...NC.......................................................... MAO .............
Facility Contact:..............................................................................Title:................. Phone No:
..................................................................................................
Onsite Representative: ................... ........................ ................................ 6 .................. Integrator: Xurplty..k'aAtxilY.kaCimS
..............................
.......
Certified Operator:Gljx.K................................... Carter .............................................. Operator Certification Number:J.63.S9 .............................
Location of Farm:
'south of Kenansville. On East side of SR 1737. Site #1 is approx. 0.4 mile West of Hwy 50 and Site #E2 is approx. 0.8 mile A
West of Hwy 50.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 53 58 u Longitude 77 55 42
' Dest n Current E g 's, t 'Design Current ; I]esagn Cetrrent,
Swine _Ca` ace " :-Po elation . Poultiy' Ca aci" ` Population "Cattle Ca acity PopWation
Wean to Feeder
W❑
® Feeder to Finish .
8568
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
".' ❑ Non -Layer I i'` ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other = .
r � a Total Design Capac>rty�
�C
'I'0t61 SSLWS
8,568
1,156,680
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ® Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ® Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ® Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard (inches): 28 21.5 24
05103101 Continued

!Facility Number: 31-160
Date of Inspection 06/30/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ® Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ® Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, traps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
IN Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
,���
C -e
Usedrt (refer,tquesin;#} Egp14n anygYESariswersand/brany�recommendonsor'an otherca� mme ;
a i gs of fa il�ty to 6eitere�aiplaar► rtuat ns (use additional pages a mess } } ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
Diu -�. • . �- .�n�; �. . ,� � �-'� . �.� �':r...� ..
This inspection was performed in response to a complaint that the creek was flowing solid pink with hog waste. The site identified by
complainant was aprox. 1 rule down from the application site. Another person stated that the 2 reels on the Carter farm pumped waste
for 3 hrs after being pulled all of the way in to their stop points. No one was on site to turn the pumps off so that the reels continued to
ump one one spot for a period of three hours. This pumping event happened on Saturday 6/28/03, the same time as the pink waste was
seen in the stream waters by the first complainant.
When we inspected this facility, the following violations were noted.
1 &2 Ponded waste was found in the ditch below the 2 spray guns which had discharged off of the field, down the ditch to waters of the
IVI
State.
r Y, =r'r..rY..sh-t+t r,�r $
Reviewer/Inspector Name Gale°Stenber'�"S#onewallMatliis } �w`" �y'F)�� xr
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
05103101 Continued

ti
Facility Number: 31-160 Date of Inspection 06/30/2003
s
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
Iiquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
15 The operator admitted to pumping on 6/28/03 but failed to have any records for the pumping event.
7 As shown in prior inspection reports and the current condition of the lagoon dike walls, it is evident that the lagoons have not
been mowed for the past few years.
15 Field crops have not been properly managed. The last years crops are still standing in the field.
met with the owner and his 2 sons. We showed sampling points and explained the violations listed. We stressed the need to
n up the ponded waste out of the ditch and to stop further discharges from happening in the future.
is estimated that the discharge of animal waste to waters of the State is at least 20,000 gallons. Public notification by taking out
vertisement in the local newspapers is required. This notification must include the location of the discharge, the estimated volume
at least 20,000 gallons, the water body affected (Stockinghead Creek), steps taken to prevent future discharges, and a phone
tuber and contact name of farm owner.
05103101

}
PHOTO #1 Shows spray gum and reel on the Coy Carter Faun and the ditch that borders along the
property edge. Waste flowed down this ditch and then discharged into the stream (Stockinghead Creek),
that borders along the wood line in the back of the photo.
I 6A.
PHOTO #2 Shows spray gnn and reel on the Coy Carter Farm and the excessive weeds 1 poor condition
of the field crop.

"Are

PHOTO #4 Shows drainage We which connects the Coy Carter farm spray Meld to the field edge ditch.
Also shows waste still ponded in the ditch from the June 28, 2003 spray event

•!
�� #ramp
- r
4
M
4 % Af
a

PHOTO #7 Shows Stock nghead Creek, upstream from where the field edge ditch discharges into the
creek water way.

PHOTO #11 Shows Coy Carter Farm spray field. Last years crop has not been hanested or used as is
required by the WW so that it now inhibits any growth for this years crop cycle.
PHOTO #12 Shows weeds and growth around the Coy Carter Farm lagoon. This year and last years
weed growth shows how the lagoon has not been maintained.

PHOTO #13 Show Coy Carter Farm lagoon level gauge. Wet mark on gauge and pipe support shows
how much waste was pumped during the June 28, 2003 spray event.

COY D. CARTER
695 RIVENBARK TOWN ROAD
WALLACE, N. C. 28466
Mr. Rick Shiver
N. C. Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N. C. 28405
Re: Carters & Sons Hog Farms 1&2
Facility Number: 31 —160
Dear Mr. Shiver
Please find enclosed my explanation of the alleged
violations and -what we have done to make sure none
of these do happen in the future.
The Division Employees were trying so hard to convict
us, they overlooked a lot of evidence that pointed
away from our farm. An example of this would be
wadeing in poultry litter on way to ditch going into
the creek.
They also did not take into consideration factors that
made things completely out of our control, such as
excessive rain this spring and summer.
Mr. Shiver, we have been, and still are, working hard
to be good stewards of the enviroment and the previous
nine years speak for themselves.
We respectfully request that you consider all these
factors in making a determination on our farm.
Sincerely
0., P.C., t,
Coy D. Carter
Enclosures (8)

NCDENR - DWQ
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC-28405
Mr. Coy Carter
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2
668 Rivenbank Town Rd
Wallace, NC 28466
1111l11ill!lltlli lltitlllt fill 111111111 11111 I'll iFl Etlllltlll
in

COY D. CARTER
#1 - FAILURE TO MONITOR REQUIREMENT
There was no way the reel pumped for three hours in
the pulled in position. They were pulled out 318 feet
and the pump timer set on 12 hours. Operator was on
the Farm for one hour before cutoff time.
It was impossible for reels to run 3 hours in pulled
in position.
You say you have an eye witness of this occurence. The
Division and all hog farmers know that there is a lot
of jealousy toward hog farmers in general because of
the success we have had in this business.
But we live in the United States and in the United States
you have the right to -face your accuser. I centainly
hope that your witness knows that they are going to be
called upon to prove this before a Superior Court Judge
in Kenansville, N. C.

},_ I.. COY D. CARTER
#2. - PONDED WASTE AND RUNOFF
There was no evidence of waste on the site. Vann
Laboratories, our Wastewater Analysis Expert, verified
that there was a little waste in the ditch adjacent to
the farm. The field, not ours, adjacent to our farm
had been covered with poultry litter that week. We had
heavy rains and the litter washed into the ditches.
Vann Laboratories told me there was no way to tell if
the waste was from poultry or hogs.
Vann Laboratories took water samples from the very same
place as the Division Employees. Their report showed no
waste in the ditch going to the creek or in the creek
itself.
We have owned this farm for nine years and we have done
everything we could to make sure runnoff does not occur.
Since this alleged occurance, we have made changes
that will help us in the future.
A. We have had our equipment checked for mechanical
problems.
B. We have redone our work schedule -so an employee
will be on the farm at all times.
VANN LABORATORIES REPORT DATED JUNE 30, 2003 ATTACHED

For: Coy Carter Farm
Vann Laboratories
P. O. Box 668
Wallace, NC 28466
WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Phone: [phone] .
Wastewater ID #: 22
Date Samples Collected:
June 30.2003
PAR:lA1ETEli
UNl75
DATE
ANALYZED
Upstream
Upstream 2
:iel.d A
Field B
Pil -
6-30-03
7.1
6.6
8.0
7.6
BOD5
rnglL
7-1-03
2.1
154
284
194
CUD
rng/L
FecaICvlifor►n
col.I100ird
6-30-03
26,000
10,400
5,500,000
2,300,000
Total hlelduhl Nitrvgett
►ng1L
7-5-03
7.28
35.0
521
314
Total Residue
rrrg;L
Tvlal Suspended Residue
mg1L
Detergents MBA.S
mg1L
Oil cC Grease
trrg/L
Total Phosphorous
►►rglL
Sulfides
nrglL
Plre►ruls
ug/L
R)Ial Chromium
uh1L
Total Caliber
ug1L
Total Magnesium
►►rg/L
Total Zinc
ug/L
A►rrr►ronia Nitrogen
nrg/L
7-3-03
4.34
3.9
319
216
Signed:
Date:. my 14 , 2003 - —

For: Coy Carter Farm
Vann Laboratories
P. O. Box 668
Wallace, NC 28466
WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT
Phone: [phone]
Wastewater ID N: 22
Date Samples Collected:
,rune 30,200
PAIMAIETER
UNITS
DATE
ANAL YZED
Downstream
PII -
6-30-03
6.9
BOD5
ntg/L
7 — i —03
8.6
COD
trrglL
Fecal Colifortn
co1.11 Utz ml
6-30-03
21,000
Total hfeldahl Nitrogen
tnglL
7-5-03
8.96
Two/ Residue
tnglL
Total Suspended Residue
tttg/L
Detergents AIBAS
mg/L
Oil d- Grease
tnglL
Total Phosphorous
mglL
Sulfides
mglL
Phenols
uglL
Total Chromium
uglL
Total Copper
uglL
Total Alagttest-Lan
tng/L
Total Zinc
uglL
Ammonia Nitrogen
tng/L
7-3-03
5.04
Signed:
Date: 3u1y 14 , 2003

COY D. CARTER
#3. - DISCHARGING INTO WATERS OF THE STATE
There is no way that we discharged 20,000 gallons of
waste into Stockinghead Creek.
Water samples taken by Vann Laboratories verify this.
The Division Employees were basing a lot of this
discharge on the fact that the ditch near the creek
had pink residue.
The field, not ours, adjacent to our farm was covered
with poultry litter the week before this occurence. Having
been a poultry farmer for most of my life I know that poultry
waste turns pink when wet.
Your Division Employees had to wade through litter and
shavings to get to the ditch near the creek where heavy
rains had caused severe erosion on this field.
Approximately 5 acres of this field washed directly into
the ditch going to the creek.
When this was brought to the Division Employees attention,
they responded that it was not against the law for
poultry litter to wash into the creek.
I feel it is wrong to blame me when the evidence was
there indicating that this did happen.
The few gallons of waste that might have come from our
farm lies between these two fields. It is a great possibility
that the waste in that ditch could have been poultry litter
also.
we did pump the waste out of the ditch adjacent to
the farm as we have documented by the photos taken
that day. There could not have been more than 20 gallons
of waste in the ditch.
We have assigned an employee to monitor the fields when
we are pumping at all times to ensure that we have no
runoff.
PHOTOS ATTACHED VERIFYING WE DID PUMP ABOUT 20 GALLONS OF
WASTE WATER OUT OF DITCH ADJACENT TO THE FARM.

f ?4ti
. -
•ter �
T _ y `�
y� ?.S. of •ice-Y_
'.
y
�`
. •ice ^ - �.,� f,-- 4
�- _�„ s __
.
� -C�r
.,c

ii' � 1�, �5 � , ��-; yF%•,,�yt! Wn, �i: ram'• _ -
• � � s ! � -'�. -+` f�� .f�i-'{ �.y.r ,,.ram"-.r.syrv-�"'�ry�r,�.�,�Y � `%•f i

COY D. CARTER
#4. - FAILURE TO NOTIFY
I was unaware that there had been a runoff, so there
is.no way humanly possible I could have notified the
Division.

COY D. CARTER
#5 - MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
We did record this pumping event.. Records are kept at
the farm office and no Division Employee went to look,
or ask us to present them.

COY D. CARTER
#6 - FIELD MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
There was no way that last years crop of grass was still
in the fields.
I attached a statement from Mr. Bobby Teachey, the Farmer
that keeps cALttle on our farm that will verify that the
previous years crop was removed from the farm.
This spring and summer has been the wettest we have had
for many years. The Weather service has verified this.
Weeds were not removed from the farm fields when they
should have been because of the following:
A;. The excessive rain caused the weeds to grow at'a
very fast pace.
B. The wet condition of the fields kept us from
removing the weeds when we should have.
C. I don't think we should be help accountable
for circumstances beyond out control.
I have attached photos of the farm that will verify
that we have corrected the weed problem and will continue
to do this as long as conditions allow it.
PHOTOS OF FARM IN CURRENT CONDITION ATTACHED.

r-'
TEACHEY FARMS
BOBBY TEACHEY
ROSE HILL, N. C.
28458
JULY 10, 2003
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Please be advised that I maintain cattle on the
two hog farms that belong to Coy Carter, on the
Dobson Chapel Road, Magnolia, N. C.
This is to certify that the last years crop of
grass was removed from these two farms. I maintain
sufficient cattle to ensure this.
The cattle are rotated on the farms to ensure that
there is alway sufficient food for the cattle and
that the grass is removed in a timely manner.

-��� 4iy... FTe.Ys���"Y.a.:/�.../' Fir �i""�-.-,.-•�'Y`�'+__

" 4 a -
x y
Tol
• t_ _ - f" _ � } y � 1' :� _ G L '�`.t fly •.4 �..+�,L Y�vy�, f1t�-, � V
- . s -� • ,k sty ,ee » - Y t i
10
4

COY D. CARTER
#7 - LAGOON MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
I feel that the fact we had no break in the integery
of the lagoon walls speak for itself that we are doing
a good job of maintaining the dike walls because of the
amount of rain we have had this spring and summer.
Because of the wet condition of the lagoon banks, and
the height, common sense has prevailed. I have not been
agreeable to sacrifice my self, a family member 'or an
employee because of the danger involved in mowing wet
saturated lagoon walls.
AS you can see from the photos attached the walls have
been mowed when the opportunity presented itself.
PHOTOS OF CURRENT CONDITION OF LAGOONS ATTACHED.

• `<_ : � z� � ism .�'-s.x Y.:,�=
� — .9 � E �4;�..
c- -
-}� -4�.�� •'' -.•fir
� R$-all Mwa6v-

1
COY D. CARTER
#8 -- PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIRED
My Attorney, Richard Burrows, handled the public
notification.

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
CERTIFIED MAIL # 7000 0600 0023 4230 0568
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Coy Carter October 28, 2003
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2
668 Rivenbank Town Rd
Wallace, NC 28466
Subject: Notice of Violation and
Recommendation for Enforcement
Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2
Facility Number. 31-160
Wallace, NC
Duplin County
Dear Mr. Carter:
This Notice of Violation is issued on this date to Mr. Coy Carter, owner/operatorof the Carter & Sons
Hog Farm 1&2 covered under Certificate of Coverage AWS 310160. This Certificate of Coverage was
issued by the State of North Carolina under Swine Waste Management System General NPDES Permit
NCA200000.
In response to a complaint on June 30, 2003 of waste in Stockinghead Creek, an inspection of this
facility was performed by staff from the Wilmington Regional Office, Division of Water Quality. During this
inspection several violations were observed and documented:.
These violations are listed as follows:
1. Failure to Monitor Requirement
Waste was being applied in the lower spray field by two separate spray guns. After the spray guns
pulled all of their way into the reels or stop points, the spray guns continued to pump waste next
to the reels for three hours (testimony from a witness), and as evident by the ponded waste and
runoff. Because the operator had left the site, no one was left to properly maintain and operate the
system.
This is a violation of Condition 11.1 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 that states, `The collection,
treatment, and storage facilities, and land application equipment and fields shall be maintained at
all times and properly operated at all times".
2. Ponded Waste and Runoff
Waste from this application event ponded on site and ran off into a ditch that boarders the farm
property. Sample results show ponded waste still present on Monday, two days after the application
event. h
#�Dlr�hlRl .
N.C. DMslon of Water Quality 127 Cardinal brive Extension Wilmington, N.C_ 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] Customer Service
800-623-6748

Mr. Coy Carter
October 28, 2003
Page 2of4
The ponding of wastewater is a violation of Condition H. 4 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 that
states, ' Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP.. In no case shall land
application rates exceed the Plant Available Nitrogen rate for the receiving crop or result in runoff
during any given application event."
3. Discharging into Waters of the State
Waste ran off of the spray field into a ditch that borders the farm property and then the waste
discharged into Stockinghead Creek. The discharge volume is estimated at about.20,000 gallons.
Photographs and sample results of Stockinghead Creek document this discharge.
This is a violation of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 that states that no person shall make
an outlet into the waters of the State without having obtained and abided by the appropriate permit.
This is also a violation of Condition 1. 1 of NPDES Permit NCA 200000 that states in part, "The
animal waste collection, treatment, storage and application system permitted underthis permit shall
be effectively maintained and operated as a non -discharge system to prevent the discharge of
pollutants into surface waters, wetlands, or ditches."
4. Failure to Notify
The D"nrision was not notified by you or someone on your behalf regarding the discovery of the
discharge.
This is a violation of Condition Ill. 11. f of NPDES Permit NCA200000, which requires the Regional
Office to be notified as soon as possible, not to exceed 24 hours.
5. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
When asked for the records that documented this spray event, there were none. The operator
admitted to having applied waste but had no written records of any type for the spray event.
This is a violation of Condition Ill_ 6 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 that states in part that, "Records
of all irrigation and land application events shall be maintained on forms provided or approved by
the DWQ and shall be readily available for inspection".
6. Field Maintenance Requirements
Feld crops had not been properly managed. Last years crops were still standing in the field. New
crop growth was also significantly hindered from excessive weed growth.

Mr. Coy Carter
October 28, 2003
Page 3 of 4
This is a violation of Condition II. 2 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 that states in part that, "A
vegetative cover shall be maintained on all land application fields in accordance with the CAWMP".
7. Lagoon Maintenance Requirments
As shown in prior inspection report and the current condition of the lagoon dike walls, it is evident
that the lagoons had not been maintained.
This is in violation of Condition ll. 11 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 that states in part that,
"trees, shrubs, and other woody vegetation shall not be allowed to grow on the lagoontwaste
storage pond embankments. Lagoonfwaste storage pond areas shall be accessible, and vegetation
shall be kept mowed".
8. Public Notification Requirement
As listed in the inspection report dated June 30, 2003, it was estimated that the discharge of animal
waste to waters of the State is at least 20,000 gallons and that public notification is required. No
proof that the public notification requirements were met have been submitted to this office.
This is a violation of Condition III. 15 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 that states, "A copy of all
public notices and proof of publication must be sent to the Division within thirty (30) days of the
discharge
Response requirements are listed as follows:
1. Awritten response must be submitted to the Wilmington Regional Office, Division of Water Quality
that includes:
a. An explanation of the violations.
b. A description of the actions taken to bring the violations back into compliance and to prevent
their recurrence.
2. The written response must be received by this office within 15 workingdaysof the receipt of this
notice.
You may wish to contact your Service Company, County Soil $ Water district office, county
extension office, a qualified technical specialist, and/or a professional engineer for any assistance they may
be able to provide.

L.•.
Mr: Coy Carter
October 28, 2003
Page 4 of 4
Be advised that this office is considering recommending assessment of civil penalties to the
Director of the Division of Water Quality for the above noted violations. These violations may result
in civil penalties of up to $25,000 perviolation in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.6A(a)(2). You may also be assessed for reasonable costs of the investigation In accordance with
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3(a)(9). Your response will be forwarded to the Director along
with the enforcement package for his consideration. Be advised that the Division of Water Quality
may pursue additional actions in this matter including injunctive relief and permit revocation.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please do not hesitate to contact -either Mr. Gale
Stenberg of our Wilmington_ Regional Office at [phone] or Mr. Steve Lewis of our Central Office at
[phone] ext. 539.
Sincerely,
Rick Shiver
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
cc: Billy Houston, Duplin County Soil and Water Conservation
Kraig Westerbeek, Murphy -Brown LLC
Ken Best, Duplin County Health Department
Patrick Fussell, DSWC-WiRO
DWQ Non -Discharge Compliance[Enforcement Unit
DWQ Central Files
i _DWQ Wilmirigfon Animal Files 31' 160
S:IWQSLANIMALSIDUPLIN12003131-160 Carter & Sons Hog Farm 1 &2 NOVRFE

Sf

.Idi
JI.
t