710089_ENFORCEMENT_20171231

NURTH UARULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

`o2oF W A rF9OG Michael F. Easley
Governor
rWilliam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
> Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
May 7, 2004
Mr. Craig King
126 Garland King Road
Teachey, NC 28464
SUBJECT: Assessment of Civil Penalties
for Making an Outlet to Waters of the State
and Permit Condition Violations
Farm # 71-89
Pender County
File No. DV 04-007
Dear Mr. King:
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
This letter transmits notice of a civil penalty assessed against King Farms K-3 in the amount of
$11,268.22 which includes $768.22 in investigative costs. Attached is a copy of the assessment
document explaining this penalty.
This action was taken under the authority vested in me by delegation provided by the Secretary
of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Director of the Division of
Water Quality. 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 three items:
1. Submit payment of the penalty:
Payment should be made to the order of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Payment of the penalty will not foreclose further
enforcement action for any continuing or new violation(s). Do not include
the attached waiver form if making payment.
Please send payment to the attention of. -
Mr. Steve Lewis
DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
NCDENR
Customer Service: Mailing 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 Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper
http:1 h2o. enr. state.nc. us

2. Submit a written request for remission or mitigation including a
detailed justification for such request:
A request for remission or mitigation is limited to consideration of the reasonableness
of the amount of the penalty and is not the proper procedure for contesting the
accuracy of any of the statements contained in the assessment letter. Because a
remission request forecloses the option of an administrative hearing, such a request
must be accompanied by a waiver of your right to an administrative hearing and a
stipulation that there are no factual or legal issues in dispute. You must execute and
return to this office the attached waiver form and the attached "Justification for
Remission Request" which should describe why you believe:
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in G.S. 143B-282.1(b)
were wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner;
(b) the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from
the violation;
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident;
(d) the violator had been assessed civil penalties for any previous violations;
(e) payment of the civil penalty will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions.
Please submit this information to the attention of:
Mr. Steve Lewis
DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
3. Submit a written request for an administrative hearing:
If you wish to contest any portion of the civil penalty assessment, you must request an
administrative hearing. This request must be in the form of a written petition to the
Office of Administrative Hearings and must conform to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes. You must file your original petition with the:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6714

Mail or hand -deliver a copy of the petition to:
And to:
Mr. Dan Oakley
NCDENR -
Office of General Counsel
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Mr. Steve Lewis
DWQ
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Failure to exercise one of the options above within thirty days, as evidenced by a date stamp (not
a postmark) indicating when we received your response, will result in this matter being referred
to the Attorney General's Office with a request to initiate a civil action to collect the penalty.
Please be advised that additional assessments may be levied for future violations which occur
after the review period of this assessment.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steve Lewis at [phone], ext. 539 or Ms.
Linda Fitzpatrick at [phone], ext. 526.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey O. Poupart, Supervisor
Non -Discharge Compliance and Enforcement Unit
JOP/scl
ATTACHMENTS
cc: ERickSluver, Wilmington Regional Supervisor w/ attachments
John Farnell, WIRO w/ attachments
File # DV 04-007 w/ attachments
Central Files w/ attachments
Susan Massengale, PIO w/ attachments

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF PENDER
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL. PENALTIES AGAINST
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
CRAIG-KING ) STIPULATION OF FACTS
FILE NO. DV 04-007
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $11,268.22 for
violation(s) as set forth in the assessment document of the Director of the Division of Water Quality
dated May 6. 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 REMISSION REQUEST
DWQ Case Number: DV 04-007 County: Pender
Assessed Party: Craig King
Permit No. (if applicable): AWS710089 Amount Assessed: $11,268.22
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 penalty assessment factors in N.C.G.S. 143B-282.1
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 (i.e., 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) payment of the civil penalty_will prevent payment for the remaining necessary
remedial actions (i.e., explain how payment of the civil penalty will prevent you from performing
the activities necessary to achieve compliance).
EXPLANATION (attach additional panes as necessary):

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF PENDER
IN THE MATTER OF )
CRAIG KING )
}
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 04-007
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. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Craig King owns the King Farms K-3 Farm, a swine animal operation located
along NC Highway 53 in Pender County.
B. Craig King was issued Certificate of Coverage AWS710089 under Swine Waste
General Permit AWG100000 for the King Farms K-3 Farm on April 11, 2002,
effective April 11, 2002, with an expiration date of October 1, 2004. This permit
does not allow the discharge of waste to waters of the State.
C. Condition No. II. 4. of the General Permit states in part the "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." CAWMP is the acronym for Certified
Animal Waste Management Plan.
D. Condition No. II. 2. of the General Permit states in part that "No waste may be
applied upon fields not included in the CAWMP."

E. On January 2, 2004, DWQ staff inspected King Farms K-3 Farm in response to a
complaint and observed ponding and runoff of wastewater from a sprayfield to a
ditch on an adjoining property. The ditch flows to a marsh that drains into the
Northeast Cape Fear River. The Northeast Cape Fear River is Class C Sw waters
of the State within the Cape Fear River Basin. Staff also observed that waste had
been applied to trees that were not in an application field designated in the
CAWMP.
F. Craig King had no valid permit for the above -described discharge.
G. The irrigation records for the farm showed that waste application occurred on
January 1, 2004.
H. Condition No. 111. 6. f. of the General Permit 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.
I. Craig King failed to notify DWQ of the discharge of wastewater within the
required 24 hours after discovery.
J. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures in this matter totaled $768.22.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Craig King is a "person" within the meaning of G.S. 143-215.6A pursuant to G.S.
143-212(4).
B. The marsh that drains to the Northeast Cape Fear River 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. Craig King 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. L
E. Craig King violated Condition No. II. 4. of the General Permit by applying waste
at rates which resulted in ponding and runoff.

F. Craig King violated Condition No. II. 2. of the General Permit by applying waste
to a field that was not included in the CAWMP.
G. Craig King violated Condition No. III. 6. f. of the General Permit 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
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-
H. The State's enforcement costs in this matter may be assessed against Craig King
pursuant to G.S. 143-215.3(a)(9) and G.S. 143B-282.1(b)(8).
I. 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 make the following:
III. DECISION:
Accordingly, Craig King is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
for making an outlet to the waters of the State without a
permit as required by G.S. 143-215.1.
$ for violating Condition No. II. 4. of the General Permit by
applying waste at land application rates which resulted in
runoff
$ �, �� €or violating Condition No. II. 2. of the General Permit by
applying waste to a field not included in the CAWMP
$ for violating Condition No. III. 6. f. of the General Permit
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 overapplying animal
waste where runoff enters surface waters
$ 1 ✓, Sva TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY
$ 768.22 Enforcement costs
$ 1 9 LZ 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.
(bate) rey O. Poupart, Supervisor
Non -Discharge Compliance and Enforcement Unit
Division of Water Quality

4�0F.WA rFRQG
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
1013DMI-R`► PIM09
TO: Steve Lewis, Environmental Specialist III
Non -Discharge Compliance/Enforcement Unit
FROM: Chester Cobb, Environmental Specialist II &Q�/
Wilmington Regional Office
THROUGH: Rick Shiver, Water Quality Regional Supervisor
Wilmington Regional Office
SUBJECT: Enforcement Report
Craig King
King Farms K-3
Facility Number: 71-89
Pender County
DATE: March 10, 2004
Attached please find the subject enforcement report which concludes that Mr. Craig King:
1) Violated North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 by discharging animal waste
into the waters of the State without a permit.
2) Violated Condition II. 4 of the General Permit by allowing waste to pond and run
off land application field.
3) Violated Condition II. 2 of the General Permit by applying waste onto the trees
outside of the application area designated in the CAWMP.
4) Violated Condition III. 6. f of the General Permit by failing to notify the State of
the discharge.
In response to a complaint, DWQ staff inspected the King Farms K-3 Farm on January 2, 2004.
During the inspection, staff observed that waste had left the land application field and drained
into a ditch on the adjoining property. Waste in the ditch then discharged into a marsh that
drains into Northeast Cape Fear River. The Northeast Cape Fear River is classified as Class C
Sw waters of the State within the Cape Fear River Basin.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension [phone]
Wilmington Regional Office Wilmington, NC 28405 [phone] Fax
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
NCDnN.

Memorandum to Steve Lewis
Craig King Enforcement Report
King Farms K-3 Farm, Facility # 71-89
Page 2
March 10, 2004
It is recommended that appropriate civil penalties be assessed in accordance with G.S. 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 $768.22 pursuant to G.S. 143-215.3(a)(9) and G.S.
143B-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:1WQSIANIMALSIPENDER12004171-89 King Farms K-3 (Jan. 2)171-89 memo

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF PENDER
IN THE MATTER OF
CRAIG KING
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
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:
1. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Craig King owns and operates the King Farms K-3 Farm, a swine animal
operation located northeast of Burgaw, on the north side of Highway 53
approximately 2.5 miles east of Interstate 40 in Pender County.
B. Craig King was issued Certificate of Coverage AWS710089 under Swine Waste
Operation General Permit AWG100000 for the King Farms K-3 Farm on April
11, 2002, effective April 11, 2002, with an expiration date of October 1, 2004.
C. Condition I. 1 of the General Permit states in part that "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 to surface waters, wetlands, or ditches."
D. In response to a complaint, DWQ staff inspected the K-3 Farm on January 2,
2004. During the inspection, the staff observed that waste had left the land
application field and drained into a ditch on the adjoining property. Waste in the
ditch then discharged into a marsh that drains into the Northeast Cape Fear River.
The Northeast Cape Fear River is classified as Class C Sw waters of the State
within the Cape Fear River Basin.
E. Condition 1I. 4 of the General Permit 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. During the ground inspection, staff observed where waste had ponded and run off
the land application field. Staff also observed that the field was saturated with
water.
G. Condition II. 2 of the General Permit states that "A vegetative cover shall be
maintained on all land application fields and buffers in accordance with the
CAWMP. No waste may be applied upon fields not included in the CAWMP."
H. During the ground inspection, it was observed that waste had been applied onto
the trees outside of the application area designated in the CAWMP.
I. Condition III. 6. f of the General Permit requires the Regional Office to be
notified as soon as possible, not to exceed 24 hours following first knowledge of
over applying animal waste either in excess of the limits set out in the CAWMP or
where runoff enters surface waters.
J. The Division was not notified as required regarding the discovery of the
discharge.
K. Craig King had no valid permit for the above -described activity.
L. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures in this matter totaled $768.22.
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I make the following:
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Craig King is a "person" within the meaning of G.S. 143-215.6A pursuant to G.S.
143-212(4).
B. The Northeast Cape Fear River 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 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.
D. Craig King 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.
E. Craig King violated Condition H. 4 of the General Permit by allowing waste to
pond and run off the land application field.

F. Craig King violated Condition II.2 of the General Permit by applying waste onto
the trees outside of the application area designated in the CAWMP.
G. Craig King violated Condition III. 6. f of the General Permit 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.
H. Craig King 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.
1. The State's enforcement costs in this matter may be assessed against Craig King,
- ` pursuant to G_S. 143-215.3(a)(9) and G.S. 143B-282.1(b)(8). .
J. 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 Enviromnent 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 make the following:
III. DECISION:
Accordingly, Craig King is hereby assessed a civil penalty of:
$
for making an outlet to the waters of the State without a
permit as required by G.S. 143-215.1.
$
for violating Condition I1.4 of the General Permit by
allowing waste to pond and run off land application field.
$
for violating Condition 1I. 2 of the General Permit by
applying waste onto the trees outside of the application
area.
$
for violating Condition III. 6. f of the General Permit by
failing to notify the State of the discharge.
$ 768.22
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 duality 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

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
ANIMAL OPERATIONS
ENFORCEMENT CASE REPORT
Violator:
King Farms K-3 Farm
Contact Person:
Mr. Craig King
Address:
126 Garland King Road
Facility 4:
71-89
Receiving Stream:
Marsh area draining into the Northeast Cape Fear River
Classification:
The Northeast Cape Fear River is Class C Sw Waters of the State
Regional Office:
Wilmington
Inspector:
Gale Stenberg / John Farnell
Report Prepared By:
Chester Cobb / John Farnell
Case Narrative:
On January 2, 2004, Mr. Gale Stenberg and Mr. John Famell from the Wilmington Regional
Office of the Division of Water Quality inspected the King Farms K-3 Farm. An inspection of
the K-3 farm was conducted because of a complaint received from Mr. George Steinmark
concerning waste on his property and a possible discharge. Mr. Steinmark owns property next to
K-3 farm.
As Division staff inspected the lagoon, they noticed the appearance that the freeboard level had
recently been lowered by several inches based on the particles adhering onto the lagoon marker
and suction line (photo 1). The freeboard level at the time of inspection was 22 inches. When
Division staff inspected the land application field of K-3 farm, they noticed that the field was
saturated with rainwater and that waste was running off the field into a drainage ditch that ran
through Mr. Steinmark's property (photos 2 thru 7). Staff also observed where waste had been
applied onto some trees.
Upon inspecting Mr. Steinmark's property, Division staff observed waste in the drainage ditch
running through Mr. Steinmark's property (photos 8 and 9). From the drainage ditch, waste
discharged into a marsh area (photos 10 thru 12). The marsh drains into the Northeast Cape Fear
River. Figure 2 shows the approximate path of the waste discharge. Staff estimated the
discharge volume to be 8,000 gallons.
In staffs conversation with Mr. Steinmark, he stated that waste was pumped all day on
December 29, 2003 and from 11:30 am to 2:00 pm on January 1, 2004 at the K-3 farm. Mr.
Steinmark also stated that waste had been applied onto the trees that border the application field
for the K-3 farm.

When staff talked to the farm's representative, Mr. Buddy King, about the waste ponding and
discharge, Mr. King stated that his father was the one who did the pumping the past couple of
days. Mr. King mentioned that the waste application on January 1, 2004 was stopped at 2:00 pm
and that it was noticed that the retraction system for the reel was worn out. At the same time,
Mr. King did not mention that the land application field had been inspected for waste ponding
and runoff. Staff observed pumping records for January 1, 2004, but no records were found for
December 29, 2004.
Farm and/or Company Compliance History:
A Notice of Violation and Revocation for Nonpayment was issued on November 7, 2002.
Amount of Waste Discharge (if applicable). If amount cannot be estimated, what is the rate of
flow reaching surface water.
The discharge volume was estimated to be 8,000 gallons based on the observations of waste
outside the land application field and the amount of waste pumped. Farm records showed that
waste was applied on January 1, 2004 from 11:30 am to 2.00 pm and that the irrigation system
supplies about 223 gallons per minute. This means that about 33,450 gallons were pumped on
January 1, 2004.
Sample Results (If applicable) with locations of samples taken noted in relation to the
discharge point:
The approximate location of all water samples is shown in Figure 2.
Sample Point
Leaving
SW Corner
Downstream
Upstream
Farm
Farm
Swamp
Swamp
Fecal Coliform
_King
_
(colonies/100ml)
380,000
109,000
260,000
6
NO2-N + NO3-N
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.04
(mg/L)
NH3-N
(mg/L) _
95.2
76.2
42
-
0.6
TKN
(mg/L)
133
116
84
7.9
Total P
18.2
18.3
17.3 '
3.71
(mg/L)

Violator's degree of cooperation (including efforts to prevent or restore) recalcitrance
As evident by the waste on Mr. Steinmark's property and in the marsh, the operator did not
properly inspect the land application site for runoff during or after the application event. While a
problem was found with the reel after the application event on January 1, 2004, there was no
indication that the field was inspected for potential waste runoff. In Mr. King's response to the
Notice of Violation and Recommendation for Enforcement issued on January 20, 2004, he stated
that they had made it a practice to inspect the chain and rubber base of the reel before each time
they spray. He also stated that the traveler lane was to be staked out at a safe distance from the
tree line.
Fish kill observed? YIN If yes, include report from WRC:
No fish kill was observed. -
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 violations:
The discharge of animal waste caused elevated levels of fecal coliform and nutrients in
the receiving waters. These pollutants can be detrimental to the use and ecology of the
receiving waters.
2. The duration and gravity of the violation:
The discharge volume was estimated to be 8,000. The duration of the discharge is
unknown because of conflicting reports. Mr. Steinmark claimed that waste was being
applied at K-3 farm on December 29, 2003. Representatives from the farm have stated
that no pumping occurred on December 29, 2003.
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. The effects
on ground water and air quality were not documented.

4.
5.
6.
7.
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. No known cleanup of animal waste was performed.
The amount of money saved by noncompliance:
Typically, the integrator requires at least 19 inches in the lagoon in order to keep the pigs
or before restocking of pigs. Therefore if the lagoon level rises above 19 inches, there is
a risk that the hogs could be removed and/or no restocking of more pigs until the lagoon
level can be maintained below 19 inches. The amount of money saved by noncompliance
would be the income lost while the facility would be depopulated in order to apply the
waste in accordance with permit.
Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally:
The writer believes that the discharge of waste was committed willfully. In Mr. King's
response to the Notice of Violation and Recommendation for Enforcement issued on
January 20, 2004, he stated that "We have been fighting trying to keep the lagoon free-
boards legal for more that a year, and since the lagoon levels were approaching the 19
inch freeboard requirement, we felt we had to dispose of the waste at the best sites on the
farm, and felt that it was better to'spray at that time to avoid a danger to the lagoons by
the freeboard level getting too high." He also stated that "The land that the waste was
applied to had some pooled water on it, but the majority did not." The above statements
indicate Mr. King was concerned about the lagoon freeboard level reaching 19 inches and
that he knew of the limiting field conditions. Mr. King chose to pump on poor field
conditions and failed to inspect the field for waste ponding and runoff.
The prior record of the violator in complying or railing to comply with programs over
which the Environmental Management Commission has regulatory authority:
A Notice of Violation and Revocation for Nonpayment was issued on November 7, 2002.
8. The cost to the State of the enforcement procedures:
The State's enforcement costs totaled $768.22, as follows:
Staff,
28 hours @ $19.55/hour
$547.40
Pictures
12 @ $0.25 each
$ 3.00
Samples
4 Fecal @ $20.00/sample
$ 80.00
Mileage
122 miles @ $0.31/mile
$ 37.82
Administrative Costs
$100.00
Total
$768.22

Y
OT
Figure 1. King Farms K-3 Farm is located off of NC
Highway 53 in Pender County. Map created from
1988 USGS Stag Park and Burgaw Quadrangles.

U
:-i'#_14 i7 ti').` f i -IT-. I COL 71-.T�
•■ri:
Pie IOGaIIQ
ns K.3 Fa
9.7sTW7-7-.1 Me i MoT iM f:�,:�AM FroM:; 7 IISIPI*

Sul
_ �-`f - , � . ` -- '- . _ . M �.���~"'xax#-' ��i.��r.4' �'� ,�,.•�,. •,�"tr's'"?=' , _* -' VHF -- y � �f
r
- r.:
='{ t .

wllolwi� x
47z

1• \ h
1•� _ �:`y, 4[F"'14 T'• `y al� �j�y �- � - �l' ;( `�� h h54 L•"
r =-u-4-=S^ _ - •� � A_�. •�� s �-'ate•':':.^ +.. �•>': .
Ar
LW
�� `j s -� a ��... � ate. �� -i 7� t`7' •'Ss•�,-�7.
• �l�-'�� �o s� ��� "� •� s •f' fir LqL l 1�i �rs�. ~ -�{._y�o-\-•...— w 1-.yt ..
'v. `�a-'�i i i�. ;,q- r•
' i :lf.� � 5 ti. �5.�! /"�i-'+i�r. . .; !%!.•s: r� }-.1`'� _�1• ,�41��`� - v
is T= r'.•.
��'� �����'> r �wA �
�.,ry� �
�,
- _ -
••ice-�1<,.!
i
�'
":-
� L 1

All
Al
• ` ti �� � !. `- '�I a r" , r
•I i - tl. -ilk
•�� �- •-% L^ /1. � _ •'_`' T �-i � �,` wry �,� -
j�of `3[�..J,,•',a _ ..
i !. � i I - •'S, ate..' � •-i - ' `. � Y•'�,_i �L '� ` � f
• E R/'

she .�x `y- y .sus .r a -- •.a; �-+rG - — - - - - �d y,�lf zrr , �` �`a � �� � , � 1
• Will �- 'i� r�- .�S ;s�i E;y„� � � �".S-•.3�.. � ,� y �y-a`�.1�.'� 1
fir•' ,i • �' � ,y7+i � ^Yt+�r �y ~��f� ,
kill
11
.•,,,. -'.•� .w. p fir, �+J�1` r' ,.��.. j i` � ��L: '
� ,�1"; "� Lam,• � * A` �;'� , �' + .. n � �r � • A r

r J R'1 i t
rK � Y
y r ai
�'��:r
• t 4 1 i�` 1 1_ r
�, 1 � A 1�=�� �►
AA
4 fit'
%•p mot• Q'; '
�r •�J � % ,�y � I�:� ,• R YY�
Awl
lot '4
110
•I . •.. .'� f11� Yet � + ��1 I ' 1.' t � i' y ��r 1;� �
,tf'•'� � � ..r'1 '��;4, ��� � I�jIIyyrrt�}141 � t�� fM •' ; ." �' ""' � � � � � ,
1 `t ,Rvvvvvi 1 ► f'.�'y,
'y. r1: ,' •� y,y. M� apt ,
� R
r J
I 1 �
f.A
•t.� � ���A �t '�Y,�M'` rift '�a�Y���,�;�'."il �•J'' �/��;5�'• j.
Sir �
. •. s f • `,i 1aiG • r,..�. lL... ' , :.z'-V11kll;feel - n

Ar
`1.1�tt � � � �1` � I T•ts
;Gt_► a ' .7 Y` t _ �'r_a1. ti • F i y�L.r4 p �{��•
Tr• .#��' � i. i�r-�'frr& `s r , _ II y: J%_`� � ��.� }_"::tom SiJ a'-� _
1 �.- � _ 1 / � '. �, f /ice_ "Y f '• `.

•
IW
A pro;
If Oil.
Wi�a $
WN
,. .I ,tw.7e Yat:' I!„►i`. * e ,.,�I '6 ,, i RI"itl1`'_rt ..+ ,ir •iM -' r f �..
♦ i�"w; a' a v A+" + ' �►df :Y" .�' ' t'; - J' ,i : 3fiX "CP► ri
-ZqK.yMk"V.- '1 •�'� �_:, �i4. .. o� A� ,^'2 xTel
.t� r;
OF
�t 'r"M.� a �. 3Y t � •��y,, µ � \"'^
AN
"�� i

s:;.+L+r ,. x:.'f �:rrt :rr ;a �•. ,r'; f _ , .aMr,"rai}_' _ r•-_ 'f rT -i '.:i. ,:t• ..
:,,4.,•r '` �"°:16 : fyJ:i,[ 'a .r •' ��` !" i+ ,t'r'^. ..rr: Irk':?± :u � _ �"• - [:?
i••M ?� . ,'7r i
;j5; %' •!� t'P. 1, dF;��''I-Y+. 'f�" ? r'�r 7 , J . _ r.l _ y .:r.�r {
sS�'.' },yr'!.'?�i;" r,� �fri.-n. �- =1 t'w!. .'+:, .±G":.:�f.�SFJy"•rp;� I r►!'�R..r..., h _ f .,`' r �w .�" •✓ +' ''r
,'.1�+-!•••7., ?. nl,.. +�i ,r.•tw .r r I }��.iti. !� ';v .,MM '.r:, y,.iL A�- J. "'. +,+ ti T-.�'' ',i ,' _ .,��; \ t .F' '; �,1... ;`..i . -
r r�lr% �.,•k: 'i^ ,� �,,y.�� s � .a�w.r�1• .. rl. : "cJir i� '. •,{•r•.., ... a� .•r�-, ; rrYr lam; 3 ;r r.r', �a !. -,,'�;,..-!'1'I, •''': :'i� � -.H � �'A': jieA .r��f °:r"�'1"�i'?xi :Yaf'� l�Y �i. a / �. s�• s i .r r .��.Y A+i� : rir- ° _ e� •, r`.: •":�., �� ->.{uyr- 1 -:�. ,y ..'71 •f�"',f�y' MZIC: itf• "y,,_. xf `r r,yw. 5-S r+, ' a ./;;o
t'�i'�� 7tlLn i �•�:f.J't •:!+ -lr- .�. r d `�r � f, u�; w
'1�f=�••f i . fX�'!�'�y 7c�!`;T4 �'• v rw';.�- « f4w �,� I`.-f :h` .ti7.'ti. - '*;+.ARio. '±,'.e :�'r.� .r,i .^.'•.•a rw„
„ a ) '3!•>r> 71l°�✓ ' �x� r• +.,:,% ct•�;,{aK Yrr'rt" is ;z. �r iy,K ti.- r�.r K~'•+ .i•1�!v. fk.�°- of <
r_AU
f, yd. `s : b. ql•1�� �p, �A,r-' i���ir.,.� , `:s �, .+C ! +} .rye-�.�r �. r !• •.4 a'C k'*Ir�r �q r ` �+. t r - ti +,
.4"41��'•"��,+le:i... ..
Ye
,(�3n'r. �;74�.%irlti^�'_..._�-r 'f h17r,R�7i•x- �!}��! ! r� °f .. lN, r 1.,. _
..:-yr.'�. �! I',y,�l s !!,'� ..'t-•.�J• „r. -r, 7YsYrv`fr -7 _Y ,'4-'Grriy'.��x rJ'-.+w:''JsGt"i ,'C:lj•- s~.. .•.
^I,�r �. S, •r / 1T` i 3, ?j '''" r--r � f. r � '�i-. 'r, F.��a.tr � .x n �• t .•i if . r . �.' - �:; ;+ • , ^ •
a., a.T'•ati�.i- •r .'�'' :. .? `- F,.�,\y.F• +,r••+y,'4kL'�: i 1' ±� �,+•�„r:.°...,��;a e:�::';�+1>�:r�r..r. .���'�� ioi�� v., v a «• '•.+ ..
-.-s r f _„�-•i«pi1r +, y�?Xii. •y�, a--.r, F'- -+::' r-a. pb :•... ri:.: ..�'*• .�.1 s'c'fi-.'\r�+`•.?9+�!''•it;iiI tz'���++ , 'R't;•_"ws Ys i'
µ'�,�,,t ^s+,r. r � ,fir+' rr fs! . r-N•w{".'Z, AS,� \.f� r"3•P!•J•.. �J,N1rlwt°'� •x}'•`�»'�� ' ' {,:wfsr{•�. rr+' - �,S ' �i'`
i•� r� '°7".. ''sIR" � a+, J�•-' �!h?i :.:+y+y. 'r,:ti �� w:r s -n� -r •! :. ..
r r-.y�" " a�.. . \' �'�' �J�;..i,�_�. e f� a: �:� I�, rr�"'". +h �,���_,t.,�,r� Wit' :{�,"�.1�w- � ,/y�;,., �M+rrd....f,1 +r•. ,•r',.,," � r ..r' F
7 o.V�il fit! � - -`4i. � , I w . a ..,,w�,� `L Z•ir5�rv} +t ?�"+f:.. 't-.}'{r, ' 4r�+i�lr:• - Jn��r "1,•. .� i. �'�i• 1 4+ � -• _ .
1i`'r� •� 03 3 _.i _t +'. ��i,a�7x� 7��"� � z. r, �;x r1��+rr-t^�,�•!".6¢+,r• yCS�fjur';7,��, "+ra...�.� �r.:.i'+ .«+ r � s ,.
e it "�`''r� f`��•'"�� r. :'Y� .. _ - r t !-"� � "a���`.`��-'�'�'.s t ��'F� �4 4r ���.�,C�y�h �, _.r 7 1
+ '` >~ ��&'�.'�' �-�A�s� {- r �,i',.-.�`'.,•i'r �,e � nrl.,�"�C'�•L _ .� '.'r:"s•�� f iv r k
'r`*�4 }�w 4 I.��' d�i' •^'�-r �,Qy'``''`��_ �#'�° �3 „ �4° ~r�•, ;"}"�•�''f '� /���!:A"�` ~ .+{ � Cr r �.�i7S"� yl,•�' 1;��3 . � + YJ - ". r: -
'S
'�,,.'-'�`� 1Ce�,_ �v� . °�.r. ri{ •�. 2 i 't � +, . r4N' [- rr �p Fcifi'! x , � iff���4t � r+ r �'� �� l,'+
f �+ 4• � ,� arr� r!I { � �• Y � >� C �' . � yr ch"' � •'�'�, AY` r � r ►I •a � I r'' Y,'�r *�� �� ��+�t`� �f : r ` � � �
r<�C� �� +t�� •., �y,., i� r + "ti,, •i ,aF�,,�r�p �. ' � �yf'F7 i+. r'•�1��� ,r � xw• 5•
.. �'%. !!� `' ,5 • `fa••. r' �}j T s „� ,}�.r• f,rL _. AH j`:r S 1 r, �,rti r 0. K f r;?"y -.+ sya•,r r ,
rx•�-kc;r��, '� �� � hyy,�' TL +,.5.� " ..f�fi�l/ .-`•+��J�rh,'tW�i= r f A -"C �� � „[�i i. l�/'�d� " r '-:r r,+` .+ �.• r
�b����jy�° - '_�.' --?.. 4 '� 4 ���'��. ��, �f+'ci ='� r •.•.. �S".' ° a5" 7vy/.rp,,,: yiii, }C"GY' ^4 ,`r•.F�4 ;t ✓ T
�r " �'a•a. y ,i• :.- ` ,y ,'�' ,f �, �'�.'"f: ,{(t'�:C��y,� �^,:�o-H��`y� y ! f + r '3T ' YS% ,�a.n+�"''i. '�''�� e1�r
i�•, wrr •r:• 'v' � a�� S •~ •!if �r y; rq�F+.t +Js.Y';C%' .^{� � � ;��� � ? i , r a'•`!•ir .•r� " "rl�r��i���i��.j1d 4
�` �ya ♦_ l;.� '!r rY_ i I r ,tom•.-'S�li <r^-� 't'r- ZI•` 1,7
�a i:°f, .Y` -r. � '.� ° ,~r .tY �'al�i � ��+v S�. � 'yl*�, ��, � j` � pl• � �.'. •r
;i'�. � �. �} � � i ' .,"!, �+r�J+ i rl°' �'+� r�.n� 'y.r- r,y;�, � f �$ Ir •S ` ' -rrN
yr �+ �'� ,.F. .r qr jv'i�. �(yF+�7il"'na -..� ;? f' -x'r-#.•
.i-� � . - i' �• �` ��+ �y�,t�� � � �,� fa ry7,ti a� r ° „�• yi. �'� .t '7C' r'; � �i s _
wt �!'�ij�StTri G i .r �YrI� �\r� r7..'T�, i".. t��y.r �� �•���yylf�r7�,..! � �rx z� ) r •I•- �. 5��,,, I ` � r r 1JTS � }, � � � c'ii.f,r �� � -\: � � ' ,. •.,y � • 'i �.itr: k .i ' Z 3�1'
7 �y,-r r4• .c - ��! �'�f':fl�i -' I �r�'� �a.4�� ♦ �'`` e, f 1 E .0 +! ., �� ... �'1 �'�t .-;-_ all'
„\.�. ._vr:s. ,/�� � - ',�.. - }; • r ^!¢'%���. }.: �.-, r..r4 4ti `6 M �: �., n I {� M.•.<'i' ... . e y. r .
�-1 ��''lL x , •�_ �"+ d rr ��. r f P �'ir �t :'� r r� .r1 : j „ , w t';� r��Ny � �� .r +'`}�'L r.tiR• ,`
M,`l �_ � Lf;. �9f'� r*Y •,Y; �e ,�,�Y'}1 •�• Prt'fi+ S,�'7r"+ !.� �. i. IhM1I"i'it asp •rR' , a1FM...
}S r r t «_ I -I; 1 "W" .. + .: 7' �. tr� �,� T 1.a� S'.1 � f•! � - ', r +v,°x
'fN C.' y P• rj „ r w �r�y. �",•^� ., ;r-s,r r k.. .i.- R l \ �-•,
� tf M f E r t+,yr, E.i .'fi'irvA wi- _ .•tr r. R. .. r i\. +w r
y� fi' M1/jq afjltl"'aY°Y r r rrr, [�`M1s:a.'.i C` r
•-
^,9 '�s - •'t '�` [ q r e 1 _ �•.d`1 :1e � f L �� q`!'9ilt',rj I
*;ij
Mf{ !r �. t J►. rr. 'r ,.X+' ¢�rry'/ y t4'4'� _'r�'"'�! V ��1!
k-^s'b, ;�..;r a.� _ .f:,• 7 M.T.a.�t �f : ��' a{ i r s 5/' I� I
coir
° yd :!�! I i f� -��,� S•a "�/2•+r 't r '~ 1 + � E'er` y,� •-t /' � �ti'` ..} �-S`r'-
S i•rY.: .�t�l�x,.k :yM r °ti a.. •ci'°r F'' r �4 :'y f� I
7♦
q� 4, 'L iil+'+� n of x r '(r i•r•� c�f�'� it.• t, r r`• '•%'?r1'r1�5i� �0K
h a f� F�^7 r ;r^ a „c.�,Y.�. _ ' J�:�. ,�f •°.'1- � t I }y.. �% �
{+j,,,ra r• � s°� t':° • E >• � �'S,+'� t •''" ��
sr�r�. '!'• w i r f !' Z h �' i �17 as � f_ • N -y, S.
41.. �n�r� ' iC� Pik: '�.i'`�:. 'tya ••wi��-A + .. * -,• CY 's ti' ,+�abfr r�'Y'4 t��'k': r iF�+jll '.Q�° . -,�~
i \ ! j A it�s•t.•�'} �,R�I�!" " �` 5 h w �r� ! �,� ,nP✓'r~ 1 �� t�����ar• �.`,�1� ` ,2�Rr !+'�� � ° 1bti� .
:+, � IF��"+'�'''''�'� •,1 TJ 7� + -1 L- ,�•. w�w �Ay. fY5 ��lt".q. .i T" f ! ,+.,., r--i•
S ,� �` N'r.r_ • s- �' • r "•�'i"�i ' °x. p a,• s rlr""�` r � a+ = +G �. •+S!r.) �.. r 4 y
i �>�� y.r ,C"`� x" ."" � J �,i\ i1` Y ? �'.- `�,'"- 'f �y `� ,�'•� ��,Ii.._..�,r! •�;�y�y� ��.i� >r }. � ,'
L�rt ".e .1��,� :•*„7*,�5 7 t, . ,�+�,'* 1 �='R.'� _ '.er d3' t� 1;• •'�`t� ,�r, "'/".,�",`�,, -.`' }n'Mi �y
.,,..�•'.• Y` +i ri „u, r: . �I'� �. t:`' . ,, '�'' rwF ! �,�i?q7 •r4r�M•, e ti i �"F9artrr.7 �""�W-,' r �, + -
�. 1• q`° '.�,�'�,i k F +. i "'. 1 �� r_ rt -+� c• � .-]1 . `7L r � ` ,�/�y �. '�!Q�i„ r �rT
aa+..-+�, �_�:�cr>r"•�'i.�r"�ti�yvs.�i.`:f r. °�• '. .� ,, a y.:ti.�,,'Sv. , ` ."�� :z :� �` ,�'�. r+ ..
- r r •- _. ". Yn w-:- r. .�..aa# ". .nr tee.. -,rt • _n!4.7:rYa�f _�� ! A"�Rra.,_�.'2,�Yi � ..

I
Division of Water Quality
Q Divrsiori of S ifl and: Water.Conservation
Q bthei- Agency: -
Type of Visit ©Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q. Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 71 gg bate of Visit: 1 IZ064 Time: 10:15am
O Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..................
Farm Name: I{in�ls a1C][uS.Ifs-....................................................................... ..................... County: Iftoadem ............................................... WJR0 .........
Owner Name: Craig ....................................... Jokag............................................................. Phone No: 9JQr2.-2692................................
Mailing Address: U6..Gar1aUd.KijX9, id .............................................. ....... Tgachgy.lYG........................................................... MAO .............
Facility Contact:.............................................................................. Title:........................... ..... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: buddy.Yj=........................... . Integrator: KvjrRely.8rpy(jjL...................... .................................................... ..............................
Certified Operator:.Vjnfvdl1..0............................ King................................................... Operator Certification Number:.163.7.6 .............................
Location of Farm:
northeast of Burgaw. On North side of Hwy 53 approx. 0.5 mile East of NE Cape Fear River or 2.5 miles East of I40.
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 36 G 57 GL Longitude 77 ' S2 & 10
L Design Current
Swine. Canacity Pnnufation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
950
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 1, 1
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity: Population Cattle Ca aci -Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 950
Total SSLW- 128,250
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-at/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 b
identifier: ................ I................. ...................................
Freeboard (inches): 22
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 71-89
Date of inspection I/412004
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? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
® Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ® Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
® Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ❑ No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ❑ No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments {refer toguestion #� Egpla� any YES answers and/or -any recommendations orany other connments. _ -
Use drawings of facihty to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary): -I❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
n response to a complaint received, an inspection was performed and the following'violations documented.
Spraying into tree's out side of application area,
Ponded waste,
Runoff waste,
Pumped waste onto saturated field,
Discharged waste into waters of the State,
Failure to notify the State,
Failure to maintain records for all pumping events.
stated:
was performed on 1/1/04 from 11:30am - 2pm (150 minutes) at 223 gpm = 33,450 gallons pumped.
omplaintant stated:
[King farms pumped all day on 12/29/03 and part of the day on I /l /04.
Reviewer/inspector Name Gale Stenberg =
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 71-89 Date of Inspection 1 1/4/2004
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After V Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
12112103

Customer:
NCDENR-DWQ
127 N. Cardinal Drive Ext.
Wilmington, NC 28405
Attn: Gail Stenberg
Date Sampled:
Sampled By:
WASTEWATER:
01 /02/04
Gale Stenberg
Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way • Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
[phone] (Lab) - [phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
NCDENR: DWQ CERTIFICATE #94, DLS CERTIFICATE #37729
REPORT OF ANALYSIS
Date of Report: January 12, 2004
Purchase Order #:
Report Number: 4-0003
Report To: Gale Stenberg
PARAMETER
Sample ID
Leaving
SW Corner
Downstream
Upstream
Farm
Craig
KingFarm
Swamp
Swamp
Lab ID
# 0009
# 0010
# 0011
# 0012
Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen, NO3+NO2-N mg/L
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.04
Ammonia, NH3-N mg/L
95.2
76.2
42
0.6
Total Phosphorus, P mg/L
18.2
18.3
17.3
3.71
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN mg/L
133
116
84
7.9
[F::ec:a1:Coliform, colonies/100 mL
380,000
109,000
260,000
6
Comments:
Reviewedby: _4C - '��_��'1�z•__s'`�

� ��{{p
Analytical & Consulting Chemists
Sample TvDe: I = Influent. E = Effluent
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTS, INC
Sample Collection and Chain of Custody
NCDENR: DWQ Certiflente 094, DLL Certiflente 437729
=Well. ST =Stream. SO =Soil. SL= SludQe Other:
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: Echeaol.com
Re orfNo:
Sample
Identification
a
Collection
„
H�
a$
o
; w
o
PRESERVATION
ANALYSIS REQUESTED
w
o
a
c,
C
rn
0
z
p
H
DATE
TIME
TEMP
[�Evr`h �,[✓
rl�
� Gj horn
z S �✓
opc
/1
C
.
{ -'
G
�,,
� �
/d 04
C
.
f
G'
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
Transfer
Relinquished By:
Date/Time
Relinquished By:
Date/Time
1.
2.
Temperature whp.q Re i ed: '� 1 el -Accepted: - j/ ,.Rei 'ted: sample Re qu t d:
Delivered Received By: Date: / Time: 'f' `
Comments: 17v—

oar
�0F W A T��Q
o �
- r
L '
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
CERTIFIED MAIL # 7002 1000 0005 2390 1109
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Craig King January 20, 2004
King Farms K 3
126 Garland King Road
Teachey, NC 28464
Dear Mr. King:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject_: Notice of Violation and
Recommendation for Enforcement
King Farms K-3
Facility Number: 71-89
Teachey, NC
Pender County
This Notice of Violation is issued on this date to Mr. Craig King, owner/operator of King Farms K-3
covered under Certificate of Coverage AWS 710089. This Certificate of Coverage was issued by the State
of North Carolina under Swine Waste Management System General NPDES Permit NCA200000.
A complaint received on January 2, 2004 cogceming possible waste discharging into waters of the
State from King Farms K-3. In response to this conplaint, ground inspection was then performed on that
date by staff from the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Water Quality. Several violations were
observed and documented.
These violations are listed as follows:
1. - Applying Waste on Saturated Field
On January 2,2004, during the ground inspection it was observed that waste had been applied on
the King Farms K-3 main spray field which was saturated with water at the time of application.
This is in violation of Condition IL 20 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 that states, `Waste shall not be
applied on land that is flooded, saturated with water, frozen or snow covered at the time of land
application'. -
ASA
>�
N.C. Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, N.C. 28405 [phone] Fax [phone] Customer Service
800-623-6748

Craig King
Page 2 of 4
January 20, 2004
2. Applied Waste outside of Application Area
During the ground inspection, it was observed that waste had been applied into the trees outside
of the application area.
This is in violation of Condition 1L 1 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 that states, "The collection,
treatment, and storage_ facilities, and the land application equipment and fields shall be properly
operated and maintained at all times".
3. Ponded Waste and Runoff
During the ground inspection, ponded waste was observed and documented running off of the King
Farms K-3 main spray field.
This is in violation of Condition 11.4 of the NPDES Permit NCA200000 that states,'l.and 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".
4. Discharging into Waters of the State
During the ground inspection, itwas found that runoff waste had discharged into a marsh area which
then discharges into the North East Cape Fear River. The discharge volume is estimated at 8,000
gallons.
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 I. 1 of NPDES Permit NCA 200000 that 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".
5. Record Keeping Requirements
During the ground inspection, it was found that no record was maintained for the pumping event that
-- -. ----took.place on 12/29103.
This is in violation of Condition 111.6 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'.

Craig King
Page 3 of 4
January 20, 2004
6. Failure to Notify the State
The Division was also not notified regarding the known ponding or discharge events.
This is in violation of Part 111.11 of NPDES Permit NCA200000 which requires the Regional Office
to be notified as soon as possible, not to exceed 24 hours.
Response requirements are listed as follows:
1. A written response must be submitted to the Wilmington Regional Office, Division of Water Quality
that includes:
a. An explanation of the violations.
b. Adescription 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 workinq days of 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.
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 per violation in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-
215.6A(a)(2). You may also be assessed for reasonable costs of the investigation 1n 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

Craig King
Page 4 of 4
January 20, 2003
cc: Jason Turner, Pender County Soil and Water Conservation
Kraig Westerbeek, Murphy -Brown LLC
Harry Lewis, Pender County Health Department
Patrick Fussell, DSWC-WiRO
DWQ Non -Discharge Compliance/Enforcement Unit
DWQ Central Files
l7WQ Wilmington Animal Files 31=2&1b
SAWQSMIMALSIPENDER%2004171-89 King Farms K-3 NOVRFE

�� Y)
5kEa° 4 z904
�%IG� i7awofoaY,
AAqP
126 GARLAND KING ROAD
TEACI-EY, N.C. 28464
910-285-2692
February 02, 2004
Mr. Rick Shiver
Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive '
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Re: Response to January 20, 2004 Letter
Dear Mr. Shiver:
Your letter of January 20, 2004, instructed that we respond within fifteen
working days of that notice, and this'is the.response.
1. The land that the waste was applied to had some pooled water on it,
but the majority did not.. We have been fighting trying to keep the lagoon free-
boards legal for more that a year, and since the lagoon levels were approaching
the 19 .inch :freeboard�.regtiirement, we .:felt we had -to dispose of the. waste- tat the
best sites on the farm, and felt that it was better to spray at that time to avoid
a danger to the lagoons by the freeboard level getting too high. We had no other
sites to carry the waste to.
2.. The application . at the tree line involved approximately fifteen feet
outside of the field. In starting the spray operation up, apparently it was start-'.
ed with a higher pressure than required and sprayed a small amount in the tree line
for a short period of time. I have implemented plans to avoid that happening again
by making sure the point that the traveller is pulled out to is staked out at a
safe distance from the tree line.
3. The waste runoff occurred because the reel that pulls in the traveller
has a chain that runs on a rubber base. The chain ground all of the rubber off. The
rubber base is what the chain grips and causes the traveller to be pulled in. We
have replaced the rubber base and tensioned the chain to avoid this happening again.
Vie had never had this occur before, so we have now made it a practice to inspect the
chain and rubber base before each time we spray to see that it is working correctly.
4. The estimated runoff was caused by a mechanical malfunction of the reel,
as I outlined in response 3.

S. No spraying occurred on December 29, 2003, at all. Whoever told you
that is either mistaken, or giving false information. I strongly suspect that
my nearest neighbor, Mr. Steinmark is the informant. Since we did not spray on
the 29th, we did not have any spray records for that day.
6. Since we were not aware -of a runoff until the time of the inspection,
we had no opportunity to notify the state of the runoff before that time. Your
office found the runoff at the same time as we did. Your telephone answering
machine should show that as soon as we found out about the runoff a call was made
to your office, and a message left on the answering machine, because'no one an-
swered the call.
If you have any additional questions let me know, and I will attempt to
answer them.
very truly yours,
f
CC yraig Ii' g
cc: Richard L. Burrows
file

WATFR�G
co
r
Craig King
King Farms K-3
126 Garland King Rd
Teachey NC 29464
Dear Craig King:
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
May 1, 2003
Subject: Certificate of Coverage No. AWS710089
King Farms K-3
Swine Waste Collection, Treatment,
Storage and Application System
Pender County
On April 28, 2003, the North Carolina General Assembly ratified Senate Bill 733 which directs the
Division of Water Quality (Division) to extend the expiration date of the Swine Waste Operation General
Permit AWG100000. Therefore, the General Permit has been re -issued by the Division to extend the
expiration date to October 1, 2004. During the period of this extension the Division will be working with
all interested parties on the development of a new version of the Non -Discharge General Permit.
In accordance with your application received on March 13, 2003 and in accordance with the directive of
Senate Bill 733, we are hereby forwarding to you this Certificate of Coverage (COC) issued to Craig
King, authorizing the operation of the subject animal waste collection, treatment, storage and land
application system in accordance with General Permit AWG100000. The issuance of this COC
supercedes and terminates your previous COC Number AWS710089 which expired on April 30, 2003.
This approval shall consist of the operation of this system including, but not limited to, the management
of animal waste from the King _Farms K-3, located in Pender County, with an animal capacity of no
greater than an annual average of 950 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 October 1, 2004. 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 CAWMP and
this COC and must be completed prior to actual increase in either wastewater flow or number of animals.
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 Plan is
inaccurate youwillneed 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.
t2i
IJ�T3�t
Non -Discharge Permitting Unit Internet http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ndpu
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.1617 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
Customer Service Center Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

Cnh.P nder Faclity
Nu� mE
ber''�
71 �89
Swine
---------------
:Cr ig Kin�Owner€ Farm NamKin; Far
ms K-3
Correspondence HlstOr'j/ Reason for Exempt)°" 2" .ozoo Certification �
Letter Date Type of Letter Additional Comments
ircement History
Case Number Central Office Log In Date Penalty Assessed Penalty Amount Amount Paid Case Closed Date
11
,s •
. si._ !r"
�E -'�
,,
4B'Pt ff
r s.. q :S; >i , .i f 3.' `i:_.. i ..x=. ' •e y < (•. ):
E.� '°�� { E°'!dE
'� �.�il�.
r jf
66
- 1 xx
i6 E
E E• 'Es .-- •. �1 e....t°s `" 4 : • F .f ;3 , 9 i r �e. e� E
r�,€ F 6., i. .s 6 L4.T E
a i� ? r=B.EEu F..3
S. � tf !k 4 9 sLi3 � - E �, Ej. M'
!�➢ .:"2 E °t.t.�§ .l i. t
"� Y,f ,'�E°.�;1, 444
Site Visitation History
2004
Visitation
Date
Agency
Type of Visit
2001
1/412004 Division of Water Quality
Compliance Inspection
05116101
Division of Sail and Water
Division of Water Quality
Operation. Review
Compliance Inspection
Visitation
Date Agency
2003'
Type of Visit
Visitation
Date
Agency
Type of Visit
2000
05/24/00
Division of Soil and Water
f Water
Division o Quality
tY
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection
:.Visitation
FF.,.

- uam Agency
06/20/02 ' Division of Soil and Water
Type of Visit
1 eration Review .
V IDILAt1V1I 1;7
Date Agency Type of Visit
06/09/99 Division of Soil and .Water Routine