130017_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
'49pathan B. Howes, Secretary
Wilbur Williams
P.O. Box 51.
Midland, NC 28107
Dear Mr. Williams:
DHNJF
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
July)21, 1997
Subject: DWQ Animal Waste Operations Site
Inspection Report
Wilbur Williams Farm, Facility #: 13-17, 11
Cabarrus County, NC
A site inspection of your facilities was conducted on July 17, 1997 by Mr. Alan Johnson of this
Office. The facilities were in good shape. A reminder, as a certified farm your files, at a minimum, need
to contain the following:
Certification forms
Site diagram
Waste application records/forms
Maps of acreage and irrigated fields
Waste management plan (if applicable)
The waste utilization plan is a component of the waste management plan
Soil/waste analysis records
Enclosed are forms to be used for keeping track of your waste applications.
Any further correspondence related to the subject inspection will be sent under separate cover.
Also, please be advised that North Carolina General Statutes provide for penalties of up to $10,000 per
day per violation as well as criminal penalties for violations of state environmental laws and regulations.
If you have -any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Johnson or me at
[phone].
cc: Union County SWCD
Cabarrus County SWCD
Facility Assessment Unit
Regional Coordinator
AJ 919 North Main Street,
Mooresville, North Carolina 28115
Voice 704-663-1699
Sincerely,
/9. /2- 4z /�/;�. �� 2
D. Rex Gleason, P. E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/10% post -consumer paper

DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspeectio
1 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number
Farm Status: ❑ Registered CIApplied for Permit
'Certified ❑ Permitted
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection
(0-/.747
1%7-`00 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
(ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated:
1
Farm Name: R..l /A. ?,.' / z r?
Land Owner Name: /a..hear .` e.:g 5
Facility Conctact: 3,c.¢?J.ii . ( ,,,i, ,� et ... Title: /e. . eE Phone No:
Mailing Address: AA Box Si
Cato trrLA.
County:
Phone No:
pc/Q 7
Onsite Representative: i 1',6,i4s c..tnn. S . Integrator:
Certified Operator: n.•oj.. // .
�,l(.t'L Of��a(�ls Operator Certification Number: ,...�1Q...Or-4(
Location of Farm:
Mao, a — s.7 ,.... /&1. %.1 i c� .s..i�el�. �4�.,. * .s .P at .4 rti.k e...2A )
0,; .% 43., l.Y - 14A % e-0,41 1 Li..., 'Fa r.ek ....1 s r-tc1 , ,
Latitude • " Longitude
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
•
Ci
wine
:Capacity . Population
■ Wean to Feeder
• Feeder to Finish
■ Farrow to Wean
Dif Farrow to Feeder
1,3U
�)
,❑ Farrow to Finish
_
MI Other
Poultry,
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
DesignCurrent
Capacity Population..
`offal -Design;Capacity
Total.'SS"LW
• !•''Design'• Current
Capacity Population-
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
Bolding Ponds
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes Flo
❑ Yes INo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes RI No
❑ Yes I .No
❑ Yes ) No
Continued on back

'Facility Number: —
1
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes RNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes 121'No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes JNo
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1
❑ Yes jra No
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes gr No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes kNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ) . Yes Z] No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediatepublic health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ivy s' A ant ... )52. 1 l! �`,t'rC3.� e1p
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
Comments (refer to:question<#):,,.Explain'anyYES answers andkir any:recommendation§ or any other coninients.-
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations: (use additional pages ,as neceSS4y)
ve7e. 47 /dv, Dr? ,Shra7e c / Heeds 74 Le 6.c,c -,
v'i t� �GVI@ cx�iCrcl togr -a "5 /lead r'ecovriS ,
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes I No
❑ Yes j21' No
❑ Yes allo
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes J] No
El Yes izNo
❑ Yes [g' To
❑ Yes IEI:No.
,i ,J Yes No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: % 7%?
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality S•c on, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
:WQ. Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Farm Status: Registered 0 Applied for Permit
❑ Certified 0 Permitted
Farm Name:
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection
V.:3/)
24 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
(ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
or Inspection (includes travel and processing)
0 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Land Owner Name: 1 t "ha
r • `ageo
Facility Conctact: Title: Phone No:
Mailing Address: aa. • SI ,/ r c f ��� 4 ba Y l o
Onsite Representative: ,...�� �1s' Integrator:
Certified Operator: 4Z( v{� ® �/C� 5 Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm: II
County: Cc
Phone No: ^ 5 j
....:../. go.c-f a.1( :s.&S s .LA a: ta.h 1.1.1.3
c?. ef`.....�t.c.� r c... /--%.r. S �??n \Vf
Latitude • " Longitude
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
wine
..Design•`` `Current
Ca acity Po ulaf
■ Wean to Feeder
p
p ion .
17, Feeder to Finish
Nth
90ZD
D Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
,❑ Farrow to Finish
• Other I
'
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge,is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes No
maintenance/improvement?
•
Design ; ; J..Current ..
Poultry ; Capacitv'Poputation
0 Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Total,Design,Capaci:
Ttal, SSLW
❑ Dairy
0 Non -Dairy
Design Current:
Capacity -Population
❑ Yes 'No
❑ Yes 114 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
4/30/97
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes 'No
Continued on back

Facility Number: —
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application /y
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .. s`vl,. .5 G NtlnQ`e4 ,. 1.a:/..� 7. ..f�
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities Only n//4
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes `®No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 6
❑ Yes I,No
❑ Yes -No
❑ Yes gNo
`A Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes l.No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes X1 No
❑ Yes tNo
❑ Yes INo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ No
❑ No
COminents `(refer to question #): ' Explairi''any YES, answers and/or any recommendations, or -any other comments.
Use :drawings of facility to better explain situations: (use' additional pages as necessary)': ;•
f 4T era) o i -ti s v- o� 1r c .) 0,S
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 7-/2-5 %
cc: Division of Water Quality, Water Quality lion, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

:lAMESs_B: •HUNT-JR
v BILL'�HOLMAN " '
SECRETARY
.-...�......�..�.,..�a�% �.� �t%
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
MOORESVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
WATER QUALITY S1✓CTION
June 23, 2000
Kip Williams
P.O. Box 51
Midland, NC 28107
Subject: Notice of Deficiency
DWQ Animal Operation Inspection
Wilburn Williams Farm, Facility #: 13-11, 13-17
Dear Mr. Williams:
Mr. Alan Johnson of this Office conducted a site inspection of your facilities on
June 20, 2000. This letter is being issued for each facility as a Notice of Deficiency
for failing to maintain the vegetation around the storage pond and buildings.
Excessive vegetative growth prevents a proper inspection of the facilities and the
storage pond. This deficiency has been noted during previous inspections.
At facility 13-17 (feeder -finish), small shrubs on the northeast corner of the
storage pond embankment need to be cut down. Grass and weeds around the
remainder of the pond and the buildings needs to be properly maintained (mowed
and/or herbicide). Also, the pump marker needs to be repainted so that it is easily
identifiable.
Facility 13-11 (farrow -feeder) requires similar maintenance. The grass and
weeds need to be mowed to allow for proper inspection of the buildings and storage
pond for seeps and leaks. Also, the rodent problem needs to be controlled.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact Mr. Johnson or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
D. Rex Gleason, P.E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
cc: Compliance/Enforcement Unit
Regional Coordinator
File
919 NORTH MAIN STREET, MOORESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28115
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

I Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection
Facility Number 1 / 3
0 Follow-up of DSWC review
0 Permitted Certified
d Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered
Farm Name: LAL.3 1 �(A..lrc-sc
1..(Q E..L Lak.i..(.Un..1ek.t.
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection
El Not Operational
Owner Name:
County:
0 Other
Date Last Operated:
c_c Lev
Phone No:.
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Mailing Address: /
(� .��,�� s.(
Onsite Representative: lC I..F? w i L u.c,x. V45 Integrator:
ICi.? .....t..l\ 1 0- w'- S
Certified Operator:
L.grarticin of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:A Lf
nude
Longitude
Li
.Swine
D Wean to Feeder
Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry
0 Feeder to Finish
, 0 Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder I /30
17 Farrow to Finish
70
0 Gilts
0 Boars
Design 'Current -
Capacity Population- - Cattle
0 Layer
D Non -Layer
0 Other
0 Dairy
:rDesign :.Current
:.:Capacity ;P.optilation-
❑ Non -Dairy
Total Design dap64,1
ota1.SSLW
Nnmberof Lagoons:...
�iolding Ponds/:Solid'Traps
❑ Subsurface Drains Present
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon 0 Spray Field 0 Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
0 Lagoon Area
0 No Liquid Waste Management System
0 Spray Field Area
Structure 1 Structure 2
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes 1No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
D Yes
D No
N
RN
❑ Yes No
Structure 6
❑ Yes ❑ No
Continued on back
3/23/99

,cility Number: Z� — 1
Date of Inspection
4/24/2000
Printed on:
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? •
12. Crop type COr-%eN 1 cr. -e / SDt(p
tet- VI
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 0 No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? 0 Yes 0 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre.determination? 0 Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
0 Yes RI:Jo
16. Is there.a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
0 Yes g No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 'No
12 es ❑ No
Yes 'No
❑ Yes ❑ No
(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? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? 0 Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN 0 Yes g.No
Renuired Records & Documents
: 17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
0 Yes Ki No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) 0 Yes E No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) 0 Yes ,lNo
20. •Is facility not in compliance with 'any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes [No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? 0 Yes (p,No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ.of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) 0 Yes W,,No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
0 Yes r. No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 14Yes 0 No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? 0 Yes [ No
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement buildingio the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 0 Yes 0 No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes ft" No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ZNo
roads. building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the Iiquid surface of the lagoon? • 0 Yes g No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. -Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
0 Yes ❑ No

Facility Number: , 3 -
Date of Inspection
;Adtlitional;Comments andlor;Drawings:
ca. t 540 kNoi I,
( c c 0.0 , - �t�C1_� rpd,
&i9
L e cf.) viA(� �e
7/25/97

Divisirinof Soil.and Water:CoIIsei vation -Operation Review' _ � =fin �►'
Division of Soil and Water Conserafion - Complianceluspeciion �'''� -xf'� s r _
ion of Water Quality Compliance �nspecii on q 2a ^Ta ["1MG>M%.•
�."k•F1.�..ii.._.a•�...1r�tiw' •i fJ }
Y.. - Other Agency- = - ' 'r= � � ..':
)Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection
Facility Number I %3
7
0 Follow-up of DSWC review
D Permitted gCertified D Conditionally Certified 0 Registered
Farm Name: 1,o /11.71...5
Owner Name: C-A=
Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection
0 Not Operational
0 Other
Date Last Operated:
County: Ca. )r-n. i 5
Phone No:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Mailing Address: a. l' s \ ,.Al 1..Sf.i•Gi..44 2.,1(P.2,_,
Onsite Representative: kl..- to;t`•k.1, 6-vi'►.5 Integrator:
Certified Operator: f •+-•� -L.kkio..YLa,.s Operator Certification Number: /6..0 1
L non of Farm:
IT�
Latitude
•
Longitude
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
f 2.07 I (orb
D Farrow to Wean
0 Farrow to.Feeder
I
10 Farrow to Finish
I
D Gilts
!
Boars
I
Design Current
Capacity Population Cattle
Laver
ID Non -Laver j
0 Other
❑ Dairy
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Non -Dairy I
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
J
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
0 Subsurface Drains Present
D. Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area.
No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field L7 Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State?, (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
❑Yes No
❑ Yes `D No
DYes ❑No
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If•yes. notify DWQ) 0 Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes (i'No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes !No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 • Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: r��r
Freeboard (inches): Jj
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/ 23/99
❑ Yes kNo
Continued on back

12. Crop type trn U,:stt12 4
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the C&ified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes 0 No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? y ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? 0 Yes 0 No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes 0 No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes 0 No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? 0 Yes ❑ No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes No
18. 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
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (id irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes JANo
20. Is facility not in compliance with' any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes [po
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ;3.No
22. FaiI to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does -facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Odor Issues
.cility Number: /3— /7 Date of Inspection Printed4/24/2000
on:
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 Aonlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes
11. Is there evidence of over application? 0 Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN 0 Yes ❑ No
es kNto
❑ Yes ❑ No
14:fes ❑ No
kYes i10
❑ Yes No
D Yes `A, No
. ❑ Yes ` No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement buildinz to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 0 Yes 0 No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ZI.J.To
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the Iiquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
❑ Yes
31. Do.the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
[�o
❑No
❑ Yes ❑ No

Facility Number: t — (-7
l:)ate of Inspection
Additional Comirients and/or Draw ngs:;
A.
a P 5 2 Ofr\_fac
Sa ; 5a-vt p le s �iJ . 20 p 1 (U 0 Z Z . � hc�: i L s
I J J
vti i v� (r e-trA -
7/25/97

Notice of Violation (responce)
Facility 13-11 & 13-17
1) trees and shrubs: November 2000 Rocky Durham inspected the facilities. A question
was directed to him concerning the issue. responce: I see no problem and don't see
where Alan Johnson would have a problem with the said matter, as trees had been cut back
during the previous summer..
2) In all past visits you have understood the way the waste records were kept. Why on this
visit you don't understand. I have checked and corrected a few minor details. Waste was
within limits.
3) You have only asked for a site diagram. We have offered to show you the risers.
The mentioned above have been corrected or are in the process of being corrected..
The embankments cannot be mowed with a one to one slope. I will not endanger myself or
any one else to satisfy your requirements.
NC DEPT. OF ENViROMMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MOORESVi! 1.E FFIEC.ION AL OFFICE
A" 5 . •" " K `, r f,+:e--o ems
JJUN 0 8 2001
4/7/e/

tij
.,�0F SAT Al)
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr.,Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
WATER QUALITY. SECTION
May 24, 2001
Kip Williams
P.O. Box 51
Midland, NC 28107
Subject: Notice of Violation (Response)
William Swine Farm
Facility 13-11 & 13-17
Union County, NC
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for your response to the Notice of Violation issued on April 3, 2001 for the inspection
conducted at your farm. It will be included with your file. We apologize for any confusion you may have, but it
was requested that a letter indicating the actions taken to correct the noted violations be mailed to Mr. Alan
Johnson's attention.
The Division of Water Quality requires that all trees and shrubs and other woody vegetation be removed
according to good "engineering practices" and the storage pond embankments be kept mowed. Mr. Johnson has
noted excessive vegetated growth on the embankments during his inspections for the past three years (September
2, 1999; June 23, 2000, and March 29, 2001).
It is important that the information on the waste application forms agree with the information shown in
the farm plan. The box on the IRR2 form for field size should contain the acres covered by the irrigation system
(the wetted acres). It was not clear whether the total acres, wetted acres, or the acreage covered for each pull (by
the traveling gun) was used without recalculating the information on the form. It is important that all required.
information be clear and available for review.
A general drawing and/or diagram of the irrigation system might have been useful in the review of the
records. A drawing/diagram should be included in your files and be available during inspections.
Your previous response failed to indicate the time frame for correcting the above noted issues. Please
submit a written response to this Office by June 11, 2001 indicating the actions to be taken. It is requested that
your response be addressed to the attention of Mr. Johnson. It is also requested that your responsereference the
facility number.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Johnson or me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
9 f'Yl .._—
\--) Rex Gleason, P.E.
Water Quality Regional Supervisor
cc: Compliance/Enforcement Unit
File
NICDEt+
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
Mooresville Regional Office, 919 North Main Street, Mooresville, NC 28115 PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]