090086_Remission (Request)_20210727 (2)

JUSTIFICATION FOR REMISSION REQUEST
Case Number: DV-2020-0108
Assessed Party: Murphy -Brown, LLC
Permit No.: AWS090086
County: Bladen
Amount assessed: $5,589.86
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 determining 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. By law [NCGS 133-215.6A(f)] remission of a civil penalty may be granted when one
or more of the following five factors applies. Please check each factor that you believe applies to
your case and provide a detailed explanation, including copies of supporting documents, as to why
the factor applies (attach additional pages as needed).
(a) one or more of the civil penalty assessment factors in NCGS 143B-282.1(b) were
wrongfully applied to the detriment of the petitioner (the assessment factors are
included in the attached penalty matrix and/or listed in the civil penalty assessment
document);
(b)
the violator promptly abated continuing environmental damage resulting from the
violation (i.e., explain the steps that you took to correct the violation and prevent
future occurrences);
(c) the violation was inadvertent or a result of an accident (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:
la A 7144#E7)
,LQN6fr 4z REM, SS/ON 4 Er"E- 4.N0 4N/"Par./% c.
D 6 Cun 611779r/Uy1
\Rem. req.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
COUNTY OF BLADEN
IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT
OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST
MURPHY-BROWN, LLC
PERMIT NO. AWS090086
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND
STIPULATION OF FACTS
FILE NO. DV-2020-0108
Having been assessed civil penalties totaling $5,589.86 for violation(s) as set forth in the
assessment document of the Division of Water Resources dated, June 22, 2021, the undersigned,
desiring to seek remission of the civil penalty, does hereby waive the right to an administrative
hearing in the above -stated matter and does stipulate that the facts are as alleged in the assessment
document. The undersigned 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 Resources within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice of assessment. No new evidence in support of a remission
request will be allowed after thirty (30) days from the receipt of the notice of assessment.
+-�.
This the 2 - day of ' , 2021
by
Signature
A U DRESS
PO ao, e5c,
) A/c
TELEPHONE
C9') i3 533G

Smithfield.
Good food. '(ZespoKsible
July 27, 2021
Miressa Garoma
Animal Feeding Operations Program
Division of Water Resources
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Subject:
Request for Remission of
Civil Penalty Assessment for
Murphy -Brown, LLC Farm 2602-1, Permit No.: AWS090086
Bladen County
Enforcement File No. DV-2020-0108
Dear Mr. Garoma,
M. Kevin Weston
Sr. Environmental Compliance Technical Specialist
Smithfield Hog Production Division
P.O. Box 856
2822 NC Hwy 24 West
Warsaw, NC 28398
[phone] tel
[phone] fax
This letter is a Request for Remission of Civil Penalty Assessment in response to the Assessment of Civil Penalties for
Violation(s) of 15A NCAC 2T.0105(e)(2) letter dated June 22, 2021 and received July 13, 2021 for the above -mentioned
farm.
This request for remission of penalty is based on the following factors:
1. The violation was inadvertent and a result of an accident. The discharge resulted from a break in a recycle pipe
on the farm. This break could not have been prevented as there were no indications that the pipe was going to
break. Farm personnel inspect the recycle pipes daily for signs of leakage or damage.
2. The operator promptly abated continuing environmental damage. As soon as farm personnel discovered water
in the secondary containment as a result of a recycle pipe break, they notified LNM staff and shut down the
recycle pump to stop the flow. LNM staff immediately began pumping the water from the secondary
containment back to the lagoon. LNM staff initially thought that all the spilled water was contained in the
secondary containment but later discovered that some water had escaped the containment into a ditch that
leads to an unnamed tributary of Smith Mill Pond Run. Upon discovery in the ditch, the ditch was blocked to
contain the spilled water and remediation efforts began immediately to recover the spilled water from the ditch.
Remediation efforts continued throughout the night and over the following days. DEQ was notified within 24
hours of discovery as required by the permit. See attached copy of follow-up letter and DEQ inspection forms
for additional details.
Our Environmental Management System (EMS) proved its effectiveness by providing the structure and protocol that
ensured the incident was discovered quickly and appropriate corrective actions and notifications were done in a timely
and effective manner. All required corrective actions and requested information has been provided to DEQ. In addition,
the following actions have been taken:
• Farm personnel and LNM staff have been retrained on inspecting pipes, secondary containments and ditches,
• Repairs have been made to the secondary containment,
• The on -farm ditch has been cleaned to allow better access to the ditch for inspection,
• The recycle system has been repaired/replaced as needed,
• The neighbor's ditch has been cleaned and seeded.
[e-mail]
www.smithfieldfoods.com

Thanks for your consideration of this remission request. If you have further questions or need additional information
regarding this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
M. Kevin Weston

SnaillikeId
6opti troo4C
August 26, 2020
Steve Guyton; Bill Dunlap
NCDENR — Division of Water Resources
225 Green Street- Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5094
RE: Farm 26021
Facility # 09-086
Accidental Discharge 8/20/20
PO Box 856
Warsaw, NC 28398
This letter is the follow up to the accidental discharge at Farm 26021 that was reported to the
Division on August 20, 2020.
Sequence of Events:
1) Farm called LNM staff about 6:00 am 8-20-20 to report spill and water in secondary
containment. The farm had a recycle line that had broken and was the cause of the spill.
LNM staff pumped water out of secondary containment back to the lagoon. He also saw
where secondary containment went over and was not sure about ditch because of
vegetative cover. Secondary containment has some sediment from farm construction built
up in the bottom.
2) Second LNM staff went to check ditch and reported everything was ok about 12:00 noon.
(As we will see further in this response, this was not the case and the LNM employee has
been disciplined according to Smithfield Policy)
3) Jerry Hairr got a call from the neighbor that he had water in the ditch about 2:00 pm and
notified Mike Norris. LNM staff responded and found there was wastewater further down
the ditch. The neighbor had some heavy equipment and stopped the flow in the ditch on
power line close to the creek.
4) It was determined that some of the water was passed the dam in the ditch and reached
unnamed tributary of Smith Mill Pond Run. Most of this water was pulled back and
reclaimed with remediation efforts, this being known by the pumps pulling clear water
back.
5) Remediation efforts began and continued into the night. Remediation efforts were
continued the next two days, 8-21-20 and 8-22-20. The doser water was retumed to the
lagoon and the water from the neighbor's ditch was applied to the power line field.
6) The site and ditches were checked again 8-23-20 and I met other LNM staff there Monday
8-24-20.
Estimate of discharge:
A) With the freeboard level before and after spill, and size of the lagoon, it is estimated
total of about 60,000 gallons. With size of containment and amount recovered from
the ditch on the property, we are estimating 10,000 gallons to 15,000 gallons left the
property.

• Page 2 August 26, 2020
Plan for corrective actions from this accidental discharge:
1) Retrain staff on checking secondary containments and ditches downstream during and
after an accidental discharge.
2) Secondary containment repair and removal of excess sediment due to farm construction
3) On farm ditch cleaned and trees from side removed- access for ditch inspection
4) Some of the recycle system on the farm will be replaced and other parts repaired and
tested.
5) Neighbors ditch cleaned and seeded
6) Power line seeded with winter over seed (probably rye grass)
Attachments:
A) Included with this letter is a copy of the most current waste analysis as required by the
permit along with a copy of the estimate of discharge press release as required by NC
Statutes, Article 21, Chapter 143.2215C.
I have outlined all currently available information about this incident. Smithfield staff has responded in
an appropriate and responsible manner in accordance with our Environmental Management System
emergency response plan and in keeping with our responsibilities under the state permit.
Our Environmental Management System (EMS) proved its' effectiveness by providing the structure and
protocol that all parties involved in the response and ensuring, that they did so in a timely and effective
manner.
If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mike Cudd
Environmental Systems Manager
Murphy -Brown LLC
[phone]

o
C N
m
C E
0
a
a>
N r
a�
o
a 0
2 .0
E
N•
C
- O
m
E
s
E Z
a) m
C 2
N w
N
0) N
m 0)
C co
CO
0)
C
0 2
E
0
0
m
a)
O
0)
CE
C
m
L
0)
O
LL

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.govlagronomi/ Report No. FY20-W007371
Mike Cudd Sampled: 06/23/2020 I Received: 06/26/2020 I Completed: 07/16/2020 Page 2 of 2
Understanding the Waste Report
NHa-N = Ammonium -N
Ni = Nickel
NO3-N = Nitrate -N
P = Phosphorus
Pb = Lead
S = Sulfur
Se = Selenium
meq/L = milliequivalent per liter; mS = millisiemens; ppm = parts per million or mg/L; S = siemens; T = trace (<0.005 lb/unit)
Additional information: www.ncagr.qov/agronomi/pdffiies/uwaste.odf & www.ncagr.qov/agronomi/pdffiles/wastequide.pdf
Cu = Copper
Fe = Iron
K = Potassium
Mg = Magnesium
Mn = Manganese
Mo = Molybdenum
N = Nitrogen
Na = Sodium
U EnN O
3 O Tof6 L .L
Q Q m 0 0 0 0
n u it n n n u
Nutrient concentrations and other data on this report are provided so that waste materials can be applied at agro
application and preventing environmental contamination. In reading the Laboratory Results section, remember 1
analyzed as received; all other wastes are dried first. Values in the Estimate of Nutrients Available for First Cry
application you specify and reflects the fact that only 40-60% of the nitrogen becomes available within one year c
available.
Q Q 00 O D U U
DM% is percent Dry Matter [for semi -solid and
solid waste, this value facilitates conversion of
dry -basis concentrations (ppm) back to
wet -basis of original sample].
EC (Electrical Conductivity) measures
salinity, or soluble salts (SS).
pH measures basicity/acidity.
ALE is Agricultural Lime Equivalence. The ALE
indicates the amount of the waste material that
provides a limiting effect equivalent to one ton of
agricultural grade limestone.
BD is Bulk Density in lb/yd3.
CCE is Calcium Carbonate Equivalence and is
used to determine ALE.
C:N ratio is the Carbon:Nitrogen ratio.

Notice of Discharge of Animal Waste
On August 20, 2020, Farm 2601-2, located at 7301 N.C. Hwy 210 West, Garland, NC,
experienced a discharge of swine wastewater. As soon as the discharge was discovered, farm
personnel took immediate steps to both stop the flow and contain and return wastewater to
the farm's permitted system. NCDENR was also notified. The discharge resulted from a break
in a recycle line on the farm. The volume of the discharge was estimated to be between 10,000
and 15,000 gallons. The wastewater entered an unnamed tributary of Smith Mill Pond Run.
Remediation efforts have been successful in capturing and land applying the majority of the
discharged material.
This notice was required by North Carolina General Statutes, Article 21, Chapter 143.2215C
Kraig Westerbeek
[phone]

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 090086 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS090086 ElDenied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Other County: Bladen Region: Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 08/20/2020 Entry Time: 06:20 pm Exit Time: 9:00 pm Incident #:
Farm Name: 2602-1
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 805 NC Hwy 210 W Ingold NC 28441
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant • Not Compliant
Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 44' 60"
Hwy. 210 one mile west of intersection of 210 and Hwy. 701, on south side of 210.
Longitude: 78° 26' 32"
Question Areas:
▪ Dischrge & Stream Impacts
▪ Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Other Issues
Waste Application
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
Michael L Cudd
Operator Certification Number: 25233
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Michael Cudd
On -site representative Michael Norris
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Bill Dunlap
Steve Guyton
Phone: [phone]
Date:
Inspection Summary:
DWR was notified at 5:19 pm that waste had by-passed the containment area at the building site. The wsate entered a ditch that
flowed to a unnamed tributary to Smith Mill Pond Run.
LNM Staff did not see that the waste that had bypassed the contaiment area left the farm site.
The neighbor called and reported waste was in his ditch @2:00pm. LNM Staff asked the neighbor to use his dozer to block the
ditch.
They began recovery from the ditch to a wildlife plot under the powerline.
The recovery continued into the night.
no water samples taken.
will return 8-21-2020
Page 1 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Inspection Date: 08/20/20 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 090086
Reason for Visit: Other
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Effective
Date
Built
Date
Closed
Date
Designated
Freeboard
Observed
Freeboard
Lagoon
#1
06/14/2005
19.80
Lagoon
1
11/03/2005
19.00
Page 2 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/20/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ 'arc
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need 0 0 0 •
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? 000•
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
Total Phosphorus?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Yes No NA NE
• ❑ ❑ ❑
0
• ❑ ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
under investigation
• ❑ ❑ ❑
❑•❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
000•
O 00•
❑ ❑❑ ■
• 00•
O 00•
O 00•
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
Page 3 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/20/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Other
Waste Application
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
Rainfall?
Stocking?
Crop yields?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ 0011
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
001:1001:101:10
Page 4 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/20/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Other
Records and Documents
120 Minute inspections?
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipmen
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
CAW M P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes No NA NE
El
El
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
0
0
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
Yes No NA NE
O 1:11:11
JUDO
❑ • ❑ ❑
O 0011
0
0
0
EINEM
❑•❑ ❑
111000
Page 5 of 5

• Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 090086
Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS090086 0 Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Fayetteville
Reason for Visit: Follow-up County: Bladen Region:
Date of Visit: 08/21/2020 Entry Time: 08:00 am Exit Time: 11:00 am Incident #:
Farm Name: 2602-1
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 805 NC Hwy 210 W Ingold NC 28441
Facility Status:
❑ Compliant
▪ Not Compliant
Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 44' 60"
Hwy. 210 one mile west of intersection of 210 and Hwy. 701, on south side of 210.
Longitude: 78° 26' 32"
Question Areas:
▪ Dischrge & Stream Impacts
▪ Records and Documents
III El
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Other Issues
Waste Application
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
Michael L Cudd
Operator Certification Number: 25233
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Michael Cudd
On -site representative Michael Norris
Primary Inspector: Steve Guyton
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone: [phone]
Date:
Inspection Summary:
Waste recovery was still in progress from the night before
Documented with IPAD collector that no visible waste pasted the collection area under the power line
9. The repair of the recycle line was in progress, the old pipe had split at the seam. they will replace all of this type of pipe soon.
The containment area had thick vegetative cover.
Some waste was still in containment area this will be recovered after ditch is cleaned.
will follow up when containment area is cleaned up.
Page 1 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/21/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Effective
Date
Built
Date
Closed
Date
Designated
Freeboard
Observed
Freeboard
Lagoon
#1
06/14/2005
19.80
Lagoon
1
11/03/2005
19.00
Page 2 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/21/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? •❑ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other •
a. Was conveyance man-made? •❑ 0 ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) •❑ ❑ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? 10,000 -15,000
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) •❑ ❑ ❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? 01100
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the ❑ � ❑ ❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard? ❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ larc ❑ ❑ ❑•
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ ❑ ❑•
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ ❑ ❑•
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable ❑ ❑ ❑•
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require M ❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need 0 ❑ ❑•
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
Total Phosphorus?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Page 3 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/21/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Waste Application
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
Rainfall?
Stocking?
Crop yields?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ •
O
O
O
❑ ❑ ❑ •
0
El
Page 4 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/21/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Records and Documents
120 Minute inspections?
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipmen
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
CAW M P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑❑ ■
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ 0011
Yes No NA NE
❑ � ❑ ❑
❑ •❑ ❑
❑•❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑•❑ ❑
❑•❑ ❑
▪ ❑ ❑ ❑
Page 5 of 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 090086
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS090086 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Follow-up County: Bladen Region: Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 08/28/2020 Entry Time: 07:45 am Exit Time: 8:30 am Incident #:
Farm Name: 2602-1
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 805 NC Hwy 210 W Ingold NC 28441
Facility Status:
Location of Farm:
0 Compliant
• Not Compliant
Integrator:
Latitude:
Murphy -Brown LLC
34° 44' 60"
Hwy. 210 one mile west of intersection of 210 and Hwy. 701, on south side of 210.
Longitude: 78° 26' 32"
Question Areas:
▪ Dischrge & Stream Impacts
▪ Records and Documents
III
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Other Issues
Waste Application
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
Michael L Cudd
Operator Certification Number: 25233
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Michael Cudd
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Steve Guyton Phone: [phone]
Date:
Inspection Summary:
2. see 8-20 & 21 2020 inspections.
Michael Cudd contacted DWR and reported that the recovery of waste had been completed and repair to recycle line had been
made.
The containment area has been cleared off of vegataion and trees.
A road was constucted in the woods along side the ditch to make it easier to walk the ditch to look for any waste.
Sediment had been moved from the contaient area up on the berm around the area to prevent any bypass of the contaiment area.
Mr. Cudd has talked with the LNM Staff about making sure no waste has left the farm.
The area has been seeded and will be covered in straw.
Maped lagoon.
Page 1 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Inspection Date: 08/28/20 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 090086
Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Waste Structures
Type
Identifier
Effective
Date
Built
Date
Closed
Date
Designated
Freeboard
Observed
Freeboard
Lagoon
#1
06/14/2005
19.80
33.00
Lagoon
1
11/03/2005
19.00
Page 2 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/28/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No NA NE
❑•❑ ❑
0
0
01100
❑•❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
• ❑ ❑ ❑
O 1100
Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? 0 • 0 0
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard? ❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ larc 0 • 0 0
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑•❑ ❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? 0 0 0
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable ❑II ❑ ❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require 0 • 0 ❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need 0 0 0 •
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? 0 0 0 •
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
PAN?
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
Total Phosphorus?
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
Crop Type 1
Page 3 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/28/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Waste Application
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
Rainfall?
Stocking?
Crop yields?
Yes No NA NE
❑ 00Il
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑ ❑•
❑ ❑❑ ■
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑•
01:101:11:101:11:10
Page 4 of 5

Permit: AWS090086
Inspection Date: 08/28/20
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 090086
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Follow-up
Records and Documents
120 Minute inspections?
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipmen
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
CAW M P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes No NA NE
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ II
❑ ❑ ❑ •
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Yes No NA NE
❑ MI ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ •
El
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ • ❑ ❑
❑ 1E00
Page 5 of 5