400141_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Out

r
0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number:
400141
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS400141
0 Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County:
Greene Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
09/05/2017 Entry Time: 03:55 pm Exit Time: 4:44 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Everette Murphrey #2
Owner Email:
Owner:
Everette Murphrey
Phone:
252-753-2733
Mailing Address:
6930 US Hwy 258 N
Farmville NC 27828
Physical Address:
8642 Wdiow Green Rd
Snow Hill NC 28580
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35' 29' 22" Longitude:
77' 36' 37"
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Question Areas:
Dischrge 8 Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: William E. Murphrey Operator Certification Number: 16630
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Everette Murphrey Phone : [phone]
On -site representative Everette Murphrey Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Marlene Salyer
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis:
6-12-17 = 2.50
9-20-16 = 1.78
5-13-16 = .08
IRR records are complete 8 balanced out.
Reviewed: rainfall/freeboard; sludge survey @30% on 4-4-16
Phone -
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS400141 Owner -Facility: Everette Murphrey Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 09/05/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
- Swine - Wean to Finish 9,015 - — _ _ _ 4,500
Total Design Capacity: 9.015
Total SSLW: 1.036,725
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 24.00
page: 2

i
Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility : Everette Murphrey Facility Number. 400141
Inspection Date: 09/05/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
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)
❑
0 ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
D
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
11
❑
❑
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./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
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
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
[]
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN n 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?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility : Everette Murphrey Facility Number:
400141
Inspection Date: 09/05/17 Inpseclion Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal
Bermuda Grass
(Hey)
Crop Type 2
Corn (Grain)
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
❑
E ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
E ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WLIP?
❑
Checklists?
[]
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
N ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

IF
Permit: AWS400141 Owner -Facility: Everette Murphrey Facility Number:
400141
Inspection Date: 09/05/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
E ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
N ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number: 400141 Facility Status: Active
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Permit: AWS400141
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: "'UU"L.
Date of Visit: 09/27/2016 Entry Time: 09:30 am Exit Time: 9:55 am
Farm Name:
Everette Murphrey #2
Owner:
Everette Murphrey
Mailing Address:
6930 US Hwy 258 N
Physical Address:
8642 Willow Green Rd
Facility Status:
NCompliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Region:
Incident#
Owner Email:
Phone:
Farmville NC 27828
Snow Hill NC 28580
Murphy -Brown LLC
❑ Denied Access
Washington
252-753-2733
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35' 29' 22" Longitude: 77' 36' 37"
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: William E Murphrey Operator Certification Number: 16630
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representatives): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Everette Murphrey Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Everette Murphrey Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested: 2016
9-2-16 = 1,78
5-13-16 = 1.93
IRR records are complete & balanced out on CB Hay. New owner took over in July 2016
Reviewed: freeboard/rainfall; some gap between April & July when new owner took over, lagoon was at 16" for 2-26 - 3-9 PDA was
written. crop yield, sludge survey a6 30% in April 2016.
Note one new house was built this summer to accomadate the change in type to wean to finish
page: 1

Permit AWS400141 Owner - Facility : Everette Murphrey Facility Number. 400141
Inspection Date: 09/27/16 Inpsecbon Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Wean to Finish 9.015 6,30C
T Total Design Capacity: 9,015
Total SSI W: 1,036.725
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Froeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 38 CC
page. 2

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility : Everette Murphrey Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 09/27/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
MEILI
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 (Le./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
MEI
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
MEI
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
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 ❑
❑
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?
❑ ❑ ❑
It yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 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?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility : Everette Murphrey Facility Number:
400141
Inspection Date: 09/27/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
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?
[]0
❑
❑
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?
❑
0 1--][:]
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
N ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
[]
page: 4

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility : Everette Murphrey Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 09/27/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(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 PDA 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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
N ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewfinspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

■ Division of Water Resources
❑
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑
Other Agency
Facility Number: 400141
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS400141
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County:
Greene Region:
Washington
oate of visit: 03/03/2015 Entry Time: C3:30 pm Exit Time: 4 00
pm Incident #
Farm Name: Vandiford Swine #2
Owner Email:
[e-mail]
Owner: Charles Ray Vandiford
Phone:
252-753-4972
Mailing Address: 8642 willow Green Rd
Snow Hill NC 28580
Physical Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd
Snow Hill NC 28580
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant
Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
35 29' 22" Longitude:
77' 36' 37"
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie. left on 1334
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, R Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles K Vandiford
Operator Certification Number:
16597
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name Keith
Vandiford
Phone
On -site representative Keith
Vandiford
Phone
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(sj:
Inspection Summary:
Phone:
Date:
page 1

Permit: AWS400141 Owner -Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date- 03/03l15 Inssection Type Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste analysis: sou lested:10/2014
2-10-15 = 2.12
6-15-14 = 1.35
5-14-14 = 2.03
3-12.14 = 1.15
IRR records are complete & balanced out for 2014 with PAN remaining. No IRR yet in 2015.
Reviewed: New COC. free boardlrainfall, crop yield,
Transfered water on 2/27115 from 40-141 to 40-7 a total of 80.400 gal.
Freeboard = 18 5" on Jan 26, 2015 - Jan. 31, 2015
18" on Feb 18, 2015 - Feb 26, 2015
22" on Feb. 27, 2015 after transfering to facility 40-7.
Last pigs on site in middle of Feb 2015
page 2

r
Permit: AVVS400141
Inspection Date: 03/03/15
Regulated Operations
Owner - Fatuity Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number. 400141
inpsection Type Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 7.680 I 0
Total Design Capacity: 7.680
Total SSLW: 1,036,80C
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 1300
page: 3

r
Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number
Inspection Date 03/03/15 tnppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
400141
Routine
Discharqes & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1 Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■ ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes. notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
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)
❑
M ❑
D
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3 Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storaqe & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
■
❑ ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
n
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6 Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7, Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M U
❑
8 Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers. setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ On ❑
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?
❑
page- 4

Permit: AVVS400141 Owner - Facility : Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number:
400141
Inspection bate: 03/03/15 Inp.Section Type Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Corn. Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
Crop Type 3
SmalJ Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Typo 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Sail 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?
1:7. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
®❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
E ❑
❑
20. Does the faciiity fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
®❑
❑
It yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
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?
❑
page 5

0
Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility : Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number 400141
Inspection Date: 03/03/15 Inpsection Type. Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
[]
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
El■
[]
❑
23 If selected, did the facility fak to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(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? It yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
110110
27 Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous foss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
28 At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? if yes,
❑
■ ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quafity representative immediately
30 Did the facdity fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i e . discharge. freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
M ❑
❑
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
❑
00
❑
CAWMP?
33 Did the Reviewerltnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34 Does the facdity require a follow-up visit by same agency?
C70
❑
❑
page 6

11
Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 400141 _ Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS400141 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: ComL)liance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Greene Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 11107I2013 Entry Time: 10:1- 5 AM Exit Time: 11:00 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Vandiford Swine #2 Owner Email: kvvanrack(o_ yahoo.co
Owner: Gh rlf s Bay Vandiford Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd Snow Hill NC 28580
Physical Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd _ Snow Hill NC 28580
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: MuMhv-Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°29'22" _„ Longitude: 77°36'37"
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts jj Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents jj Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles K Vandiford Operator Certification Number: 16597
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Keith Vandiford Phone:
On -site representative Keith Vandiford Phone:
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Marlene Salyer
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Date:
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested: 9-2012
10-18-13 = 1.15
7-22-13 = 1.99
3-12-13 = 2.69
12-31-12 = 1.33
IRR records are complete & balanced out. Rainfall, freeboard, crop yield are recorded. Sludge survey due in 2014. Caliberation due
in 2013.
Looks Good
Page: 1

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles flay Vandiford Facility Number : 400141
Inspection Date: 11107/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 7,680 7,170
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 1,036,800
Waste Structures
Type Identifier
Designed Observed
Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon t I I 1 1 38-00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 11/07/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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
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 (Led large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc_)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Cl ■ ❑ ❑
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 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)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number : 400141
Inspection Date: 11/07/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? rl
Is PAN > 10%/10 Ibs_? n
Total Phosphorus? 171
Failure to incorporate manureisludge into bare soil? n
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift? n
Application outside of application area? El
Crop Type 1 Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soi! 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
❑ ■
n
n
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
n
■
n
n
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
0
Q
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Q
■
n
n
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
n
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
n
■
n
n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
fl
■
❑
Q
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
FI
Page: 4

Permit: AWS400141 Owner -Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 11/07/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
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?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■
❑
❑
21 If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page; 5

Permit: AWS400141 Owner -Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 11/07/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NI
27, Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ■ Q ❑
Other Issues Yes
No NA
WE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours andlor 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 CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 400141 Facility Status: Active Permit: AVVS400141 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: R in County: Greene Region: Washinaton _
Date of Visit: 07/20/2011 Entry Time:09:30 AM Exit Time: 1020 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Vandiford Swine #2 Owner Email: kyyQnrack yahoo-ro
Owner: Charle-s-Ray Vandiford Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 8642 Willow Green RdSnow Hiil NC 28580
Physical Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd Snow Hill NC 28580
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°29'22" Longitude: 77°35'
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles K Vandiford Operator Certification Number: 16597
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Keith Vandiford Phone:
On -site representative Keith Vandiford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page 1

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 07/20/2011 inspection Type: Compliance inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection summary:
Waste analysis: soil tested 12-2010
5-25-11 = 1.6
11-22-10 = 1.3
8-06-10 = 1A
Freeboard & rainfall are recorded. Irr records are complete and balanced out.
Looks Good!
#31) field on right of path in the back next to houses
Hay fields look great!!
Page:2

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 0712012011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Feeder to Finish 7,680 4,390
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 1,036,800
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Data Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon 1 34.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number : 400141
Inspection Date: 07120/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges S Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1 Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at
Structure ❑
Application Field Q
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ Cl ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) Q ■ ❑ ❑
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) ❑ ■ ❑ Q
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? Q ■ ❑ ❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than ❑ ■ ❑ Q
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./ large trees, severe
Q
■
❑ Q
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
❑
■
Q ❑
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
Q
■
❑ ❑
B. 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
Q
■
Q ❑
improvement?
Waste Appiication Yes
No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
i]
■
❑ 0
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
Q
■
Q 0
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? Q
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? fl
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page.4

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Bate: 0712012011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No NA NE
PAN? n
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.? n
Total Phosphorus? n
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? n
Outside of acceptable crop window? Q
Evidence of wind drift? 0
Application outside of application area? 13
Crop Type 1 Corn, Wheat. Soybeans
Crop Type 2 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3 Small Grain Overseed
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)?
n
■
n
n
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
n
■
n
n
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
n
■
D
n
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
n
■
n
n
18 Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipmenY�
❑
0
13
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19 Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
n
■
n
n
20 Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
n
■
n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
n
Page.5

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 07/2012011 inspection Type: Compfianee Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Checklists? Yes No NA NE
Design? Q
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? Q
Other? Q
If Other, please specify Q
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Q■Q❑
Weekly Freeboard? Q
Waste Analysis? ❑
Soil analysis? ❑
Waste Transfers? ❑
Weather code? Q
Rainfall? Q
Stocking? ❑
Crop yields? Q
120 Minute inspections? D
Monthly and i" Rainfall Inspections Q
Sludge Survey Q
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 equipment (NPDES only)? Q ■
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Y) ■ Q ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? Ifes y, check the appropriate ❑ ■ ❑ Q
box(es) below: ❑ ■ n Q
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels ❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon Q
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance: Q
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
Q ■ Q ❑
Page: 6

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 07/20/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number:400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
2& Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report
❑
■
❑
Cl
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
❑
■
Cl
❑
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?
■
❑
110
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field ■
Lagoon I Storage Pond ❑
Other ❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? 11000
34, Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 400141 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS400141 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Greene Region: Wgshinoton ^�
Date of Visit: 1 121_Q� ! 010 Entry Time:0100 PM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Vandiford Swine #2 Owner Email: kvvanrackavahoo.co
Owner: Charles Ray Vandiford Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd Sn w�Hill_NQ 2Q580
Physical Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd Snow Hill NC 28580
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC _
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°29'22" Longitude: 77°36'37"
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles K Vandiford
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 16597
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Keith Vandiford Phone:
On -site representative Keith Vandiford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis
1-20-10 = 1.4
4-26-10 = 1 8
8-6-10 = 1 A soil tested 1112009
SS 2014
IRR records are complete and balanced out
crop yield complete
Rainfall & lagoon f. correspond
Page 1

If
Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number. 400141
Inspection Date: 10/2112010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 7,680 5,748
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 1,036,800
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
kgoon 1. 1 30.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS400141 Owner -Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number : 400141
Inspection Date: 10/2112010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
fl ■
0
❑
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./ large 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?
❑ ■
❑
❑
&. 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 maintenance or
❑ ■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
1=1 ■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 10121/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA
NE
PAN?
❑
is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
Cl
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat,
Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain
Overseed
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
Yes No NA
NE
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?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Facility Number. 400141
Inspection Date: 1b/2112010 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
Q
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
Q
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
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 equipment (NPDES only)? ❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
n
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page. 5

e
Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 10/21/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Otherlssues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number : 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page, 6

N Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 400141 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS400141 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Com liance Ins ecUon Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Greene Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 08/31/2009, Entry Time: 1GD5 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Vandiford Swine #2
Owner: Charles Ray Vandiford,_
Incident #:
Owner Email: kvvanrackkzwahoo.co
Phone: 2 2-7 -d 72
Mailing Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd SnQw !-sill NC 28580 _
Physical Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd Snow Hill NC 28580
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35'29'22" Longitude: 77°36'37"
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Question Areas:
N Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment ij Waste Application
jj Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles K Vandiford
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 16597
On -Site Representatives): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Keith Vandiford Phone:
On -site representative Keith Vandiford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspectorisy:
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis:
7-17-09 1.5
5-22-09 1.9
10-2-08 1.3
soil tested 2008
Looks good!
Page 1

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 08/31/2009 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 7.680 6.342
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 1.036,800
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Bate Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon 1 36.00
Page 2

Permit: AVVS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number : 400141
Inspection Date: 08/31/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
fl
Application Field
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 these any 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./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property 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,
❑
■
Cl
❑
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 maintenance or
❑
■
❑
0
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Cate: 08/3112009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manureisludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Cam, Wheat,
Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain
Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crap 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
Yes No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
n ■
❑
n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Cl
Page: 4

Permit: AWWO141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Facility Number:
400141
Inspection Date: 08131/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑
Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
Q
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
Cl
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 equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
Cl
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ 0 0
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandi€ord
Inspection Date: 08/31/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Otherissues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page:6

r
s
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 400141 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS400141 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Greene Region: Washincn
Date of Visit: 09l1 �12008 Entry Time:02A0 PM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Vandiford Swine #2 Owner Email:
Owner: Charles Ray Vandiford
Phone:[phone] _
Mailing Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd Snow Hill NC 28580
Physical Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd Snow Hill NC 28580
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Premium Standard Farms Of North Carolina Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°29'22" Longitude: 77'36'37"
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles K Vandiford
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 16597
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Keith Vandiford Phone:
On -site representative Keith Vandiford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis:
7-10-08 = 2.0
3-25-08 = 2.5
1-14-08 = 2.0
soil test current
Looks Good!
Page: 1

Permit. AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 09/15/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Feeder to Finish 7,680 L 7,731
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 1,036,800
Type Identifier Closed bate Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon 1 42.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 09/15/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
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
Q
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
Q
❑
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 (Le] large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
B. 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
Q
■
❑
Q
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
Q
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
Q
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS400141 Owner -Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 09/1512008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA
NE
PAN?
n
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
n
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
rl
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
n
Application outside of application area?
n
Crop Type 1
Corn, Wheat.
Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain
Overseed
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
❑ ■
n
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
n ■
n
n
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? n ■
n
n
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land applicabon?
n ■
n
0
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
n ■
n
n
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
n ■
n
n
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
n ■
n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
n
Page:4

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandifard Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 09115/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
n
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
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 equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■ ❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Other lssues
Yes
No NA
NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
❑ ❑
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
❑ ❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑
❑ ❑
❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 09/1512008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
r0n❑n
nnnn
Page: 6

3
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 400141 Facility Status: Aplivg Permit: AWS400141 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Greene Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 09/12/2007 Entry Time:01:40 PM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Van iford_Swine #2 Owner Email:
Owner: Charles_ Ray Vandiford Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 6642 Willow Green Rd Snow Hill NC 28580
Physical Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd Snow Hill NC 28580
Facility Status: n Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°29'22" Longitude: 77°36'37"
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Question Areas:
0 Discharges & stream Impacts jj Waste Collection & Treatment jj Waste Application
jj Records and Documents jj Other issues
Certified Operator: Charles K Vandiford Operator Certification Number: 16597
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Keith Vandiford Phone:
24 hour contact name Keith Vandiford Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis
2-26-07 = 1.8
4-24-07 = 3.0
5-10-07 = 2.3
7-2-07 = 2.0
Soil test 2006 & lime applied
Looks Great!
Page: 1

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 09/12/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number. 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 7,680 7,580
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 1,036,800
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
goon 1 49.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 0911212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ 0 ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field n
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? F11 ■ 1 ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
D
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
U
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a
n
■
❑
n
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 (Le./ large 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? (Nat 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
❑
■
❑
n
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
■
n
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? Cl
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 0911212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN 7 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
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
Cam, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal
Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
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? ❑ ■
❑ 0
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑ n
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA NE
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?
❑ ■
n ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number : 400141
Inspection Date: 0911212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
Cl
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
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 equipment (NPDES only)?
❑
■
❑
❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑
❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Yac
Hn
NG
A[F
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? ❑ ■ 0 ❑
29. Did the facility fait to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS400141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 09/12/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Q■nn
r11■❑n
Page: 6

t
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number : 400141 Facility Status: Active Permit. NQ6240141 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection - Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Greene _ _ _ — Region: Wg5hinaton
Date of Visit: 03/07/2006 Entry Time:09:00 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Vandiford Swine #2
Owner: Charles Ray Vandiford
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: 8642 Willow Green Rd Snow Hill NC 28580
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35`29'22"
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Phone: [phone]
Longitude: 77°36'37"
Question Areas:
W Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
jj Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Charles K Vandiford Operator Certification Number: 16597
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Keith Vaniford Phone:
24 hour contact name Keith Vaniford Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analyses: Ibs N11000gal.
12-20-05 = 2.6
7-26-05 = 1.1
6-6-05 = 1.5
4-11-05 = 1.3
3-24-05 = 5.4
Soil test 2005 all good.
Records are complete and very well organized
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: NCA240141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 03/07/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine -Feeder to Finish 7,680 8,100
Total Design Capacity: 7,680
Total SSLW: 1,0X800
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
koon 1 26.00
Page: 2

0
Permit: NCA240141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford Facility Number:
400141
Inspection Date: 03/07/2006 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
Q
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
Q
a. Was conveyance man-made?
n
■
n
n
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated vo#ume reaching surface waters?
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 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?
❑
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large 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?
T 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 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)?
Page: 3

Permit: NCA240141 Owner- Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Inspection Date: 03/07/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 400141
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10%f10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
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
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal
Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
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
00011
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?
Cl ■
❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA NE
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?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: NCA240141 Owner - Facility: Charles Ray Vandiford
Facility Number, 400141
Inspection Date: 03/07/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
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 equipment (NPDI=S only)? ❑
■
❑ ❑
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑
■
❑ ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: NCA240141 Owner - Faciiity: Charles Ray Vandiford
Facility Number: 400141
Inspection Date: 03/07/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
is+har iac.,aa Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did ReviewerAnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Division of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit OO Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit © Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other © Denied Access
Facility Number 40 141 Date of Visit. 3-1-2004 Time: ]d3i1
O Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: E.HJI)ix9jn..FA>"ACIA1............................................................................... .... County: Gx?!<mC...................... ......................... W.ARO.......
Owner Name: EA ............. Dixttut........
...... .............
Mailing Address: W.B0X..48.8 ...............................
Phone No: 252-74.7.-5555...........
... 14amrY..NC............................................................. U.5S.4.
FacilityContact:-............................................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No:...................................................
Onsite Representative: .................................................. ...........................Integrator:)°Ci<>xtA41A11. ka�ldal�.kaxll�S.Q�.Nutt...........
Certified Operator:&A......................................... j)jxj).p,.................... .......... Operator Certification Number:1.84Q7......................
.................. .......
Location of Farm:
Take 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 29 22 Longitude 77 • 3b 37 «
Design Current
Swine CBnaCity PODulatiOn
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
7680
7680
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons I 1
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I[] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,800
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) [] Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ®No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ............................................................................................................................................. .......
Freeboard (inches): 20"
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: 40— 141
Date of Inspection 1 3-1-2004
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?
1 l . Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Pond ing ❑ PAN [:]Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ® Yes [-]No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ 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 to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Records available for review
.w
Waste analysis: 1-8-04 = 2.9 lbs
1-5-04 = 2.2 lbs,
8-26-03 = 1.6 lbs,
5-19-03 = 3.2 lbs;
4-7-03 = 3.4 lbs,
1-17-03 = 2.4 lbs,
9-13-02 = 2.2 lbs
Soil analysis available - last one dated May 2003
Irrigation records are complete however there are some glitches with tell IRR2 program in making the calculations for
PAN applied.
Sludge survey has been completed as well as the irrigation calibration.
Need to record rainfall and uss the IRR 1 records to record weather conditions. CONT. to Page 3
Reviewer/Inspector Name Marlene Salyer Lyn B. Hardison
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: d0—ICI Date of Inspection 37-2004
Required
Records & Documents
21.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N 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
N No
23.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
N 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
N No
25.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
27.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N 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
N No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
N Yes
❑ No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
N No
33.
Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
N No
34.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
35.
Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
N No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form []Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
13
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dditional Comments and/or Drawings:
;rmit on site, annual certification was sent to Raleigh - a copy is in the records
15 - The fields have been affected by the heavy rain events and irrigation on seni-saturated fields. As conditions
Iprove evaluate the need for aeration and/or re -sprigging of coastal.
is farm (# 40-141) has been sold to Mr. Charles Vandiford and renamed to: Vandiford Swine #2
12112103

a
*'Division of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and,WaWr Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit • Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ denied Access
Facility Number
Date of Visit_ 1 �� Time: m-
� ^
O Not O erational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last OperaMd or Above Threshold:
........................
Farm Name: ..................r ✓ .................. County: ,���; ,.........................
•..-r--•.............. . .V •...• •...r •.---�-.ter........•
Y`
OwnerName:.............................................�''1..». .......... Phone No:.........�...................................................,
......... .........................
Mailing Address: r
L.........................................-...... _.d ����L `� ..... �............r`! � .� .... :� � � 5 `�
Facility Contact: ..... --.... Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: e ± Integrator:
Certified Operator...- C Operator Certification Number:,•,,,,,,
Location of Farm:
I-W
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ horse Latitude Longitude �' �° C�94
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponelation
❑ Wean to Feeder
0 eederto Finish
-7 C
, (
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons 1
_Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes a<o
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes El No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes [•1j"No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes �j
Waste Collection & Treatment I'
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway �es �No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure ; Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure
Identifier:...................................................•-•-•--...........-._................................. ................................... -...-.......-------•- .............
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 ,t,� /rt� c.c�C� Continued

Facility Number: yo - IY Date of Inspection J- 1771
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes f o
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ©lq-o—
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-5 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yeso
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level El Yes No
elevation markings?
Waste Anvlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes �o
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ©-90
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
c
12. Crop type y Yu-� 1
13. Do the receiving ops di et with those designated in the 'fled nimal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? Yes [}9,
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? es ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes E24o'
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes Bl�o
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes o
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes [j/No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or au quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes [3/No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
5
s
4--oa - 3,4
rb5
q- E3-.C,-Z
11.
I Reviewer/Inspector Name L11a r1 C g e-
Ij Reviewer/Inspector Signature: %-nle3 Date:
1 L/1 L/V3 uanunuea

Facility Number: — y Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documenyt
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? El Yes E No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ W UP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) El Yes Gk` oo
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes GWO
❑ 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 M11140
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
E;xp
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Yes
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[Ko
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
to ,
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Yes
❑ Yes
®'No
Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
2-fes
❑ No
3I. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
lKo
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[9 lvo
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
[�Ko
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[�lo
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
2-go
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" 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.
[Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
12112103

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
p Other...
Facility Number 40 - 141 Date: 117I03 Time: 1 1145 Time On Farm
Farm Name E.H. Dixon Swine Farm #2
Mailing Address PO Box 488
Onsite
Representative no one on site
Type Of Visit
Operation Revi'9w_"
Compliance inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
County Greene
240 WARO
Phone: [phone]
Maury NC 28554
Integrator Premium Standard Farms
Purpose Of Visit
Q Routine
O Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
O Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
n Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Capacity Population
[3 Layer El
❑ Non -Layer
Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
7680
?
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ❑ no
2. is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ❑ no
2. is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
❑ yes ❑ no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
® yes ❑ no
requiring DWQ notification?
6• Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
❑ yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes ® no
Structure9 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Identifier
Level (Inches)
CROP TYPES
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility dumber 40 - 141 Date:
9/17103
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
❑
❑
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Farms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
El13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
30.21-1.0200
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
® 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removallciosure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
® 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker checklcalibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
® Referred to DWQ Date: 9/17/2003
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
[]Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation designlinstaliation
❑
❑
❑ Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination
❑
❑
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
❑
❑
48. Crop oval uationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2.
49. Drainage workievaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
El3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 40 - 141 Date: 1 9/17103 1
COMMENTS:
rigation gun observed operating on 9/16/03 during afternoon and on 9/17/03 morning in same area of spray Field with little
iovement of gun cart. Inspection of spray field on 9/17/03 at 11:45 am observed the following:
4. Waste was ponding in spray field. Waste was entering fresh water pond on north side of pond and pond was
ischarging into ditch at south end of pond. Waste was entering bitch from spray field runoff and waste was noted in
,aterway in spray field entering tile leading to ditch. At time of inspection, unable to determine if ditch classified Waters of
1 12:15 p.m_ on 9117/03, Lyn Hardison DWQ WaRQ, was notified of discharge. Mrs. Hardison notified Mr. Dixon by cell
hone of discharge and inspector talked to Mr. Dixon by phone concerning discharge. Mr. Dixon dispatched front end loader
site. Farm employee shut irrigation system off at 1:15 p.m.. Waste was blocked from entering freshwater pond and at
free location in ditch. Mrs. Hardison advised Mr. Dixon of cleanup procedures by phone.
1. Poor stand of coastal bermuda. Spray field contained ruts from gun cart. Areas need to be leveled to prevent further
onding.
3. Aluminum pipe laid on path through woods from lagoon to reel had major leaks at each joint due to bends in pipe and
mount of time taking to pressurize pipe_ May want to consider installing underground pipe.
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IMartin McLawhom
SIGNATURE
3 03/ 10103

V Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other 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 O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number j Date of Visit: - 3 !-4 3 Time: �
Not �� Operational Below Threshold
E Permitted 0'Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [] Registered Date Last Operated or�Above Threshold: _
Farm Name: �� Kb n i Z County: / C.a. 00- a
Owner Name: � I _ Phone No: ZE 2-- -) 4-7 —55 5S
Mailing Address: �• z i4 t+ _ IC,tA,Y Vj N S5
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No: 1
Onsite Representative: _0 GvL 5 Integrator: l)
Certified Operator: 4571 � K d'''"1 Operator Certification Number: '
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' �• •• Longitude a •
Design Current
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
Poultry
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ can to Feeder
I
1 1
Layer
I
I
❑ Dairy
eeder to Finish(,Al)
�[3
❑ Non -La cr
L
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons �_ I ILJ Subsurface Drains Present
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 10 No Liquid «'aste nlanagen
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon Sprav Field 216ther
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 gallmin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
Area JLJ Sprav Field Area J
Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
19
❑'"Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
2rNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
sVaste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure i
Identifier:
Fceboard (inches):
05103101
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [ 1,qo
❑ Yes Li<0
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: — ` Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes 21' 0
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? El Yes [� o
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or envlronm ptal threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes [:]No
U &V" vLU+vt 7,' D
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require mamte ce/nnprovement? ❑ Yes [Z No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings'? ❑ Yes [a o
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/impro ment? ,�,/ ❑ Yes [1To
11. Is there evidence of over application? Excessive Ponding El PAN LQ Hydraulic Overload [a Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal�V'aste
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?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
Plan (CAWMP)?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of ified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oe/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ✓ / /
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (' / irrigation, eboard, waste analysis & soil sample repolts)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes L3 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[�es El No
GI
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes 2�o
❑ Yes Ltd No
0 'Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ,2r�o
❑ Yes L2No
E Yes ❑, No23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ElYes Ea &o
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? El Yes LQ No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? L, <s ❑ No V
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #}: Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. f
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): [] Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
3 aZI oz' sue_ 5vS
} 1�(e�o� 1 .z t4loco �Ss
��� _+_ s.
' Co?,t •���.., , 11 G 3 oZ �. lbw. loco
5 .
O ` 2 — � f2con s �o%_A ��
-�,• � ; 4 6nj�
Reviewer/inspector Nance
Reviewer/inspector Signat e: ate:
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: P40 — [ bate of Insprction
Odor Issues
26. 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?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ❑ No
28. 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)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ 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.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes No
32_ Do the hush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenvtemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Coniment% and/or Dra"ings: I
Aj�txi tiv0.5 si5 Co l+�+ri 4�tG+�l �ec0,Tc S
Ifu
iQ"LT
cu.` �2GthS e-�G .UJ1A t vlv �w [� i—
k 1
n
V-
S�—
b
ccc
tr L C
�-�c � 4ti�� . i xO ►2 Y� � 0 4.� � r� i1� caJ� � � � ��Q — [.��� � f � L� , e w
Ov` �k3t,p�
O5103101

I• i ';� . _ .�f ' Cam- Y-7
..ems
Painck
4G'-'
1
235
_ cc
! Lime • ,
2• Cem I
Ch
I.. so,
yl - -_
1
!, .a3�
�t 8M r� RiCES POC OSIN
IV
Ch
P3 T
I -
aJ
Cam
I _
Name: HOOKERTON Location: 035' 29' 41-5" N 077` 36' 42-3" W
Date: 3/27/2003 Caption: Bert Dixon
Scale- 1 inch equals 2000 feet # 40-1141
CaPvn9ht (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc

.c4rtv
1 Iu k op5d-ol ��� 44
w-r
! dos/cG
/ !i

Facility Number: qC. - I q 1 I Date of Inspection PrinILA on: 7/21/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge aYor below [:]Yes []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 ❑ No
28. 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)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ 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.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32_ Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
7 e' O 3- CA-,- hkku . Lc_,' G� t B Z- 6,4 .Av k -; I c s 3- 3, -- t' 3
�
��-�. .�%�� 1 _ t � _p 3 - Z • t-! t b s � Q - t 3 - L� ? - 2 . Q- 1 b s
-yamcC� CJ:
OuLcc '.� 40 --e"
T
5100

Division of Water Quality.
p Division of Soil and Water. Conservation
p Other Agency
Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification © Other p Denied Access
Facility Number 03-27-2003 I;n+e: 1430
p Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted 0 Certified p Conditionally Certified 12 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..............
Farm Name: E.H. Dixon Swine Farm #E2 County: Gir=Tm............................................... WARO.......
Owner Name: E.H. Dixon
Mailing Address: P..O.Rox..4.88..................................................................
Facility Contact: ...............................................................................Title:
Onsite Representative: no.one.--.............................................................
Certified Operator:Elbert.l3............................... Dixo:a.....................
Location of Farm:
a e 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
® Swine p Poultry p Cattle p Horse
Phone No: [phone]
Mau zy... NC............................................................I 2855.4...............
......................................... Phone No: ............ .................. ......................
Integrator: P:remium.Stam dardE.armsu.of.North...---.....
Operator Certification Number:1849.7............................
Latitude ©• ®• ©11 Longitude ©• ®° ©1.
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
p Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to tuts
p arrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I 1❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
p Other
Total, Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface rains resent [3agoon rea 1] pray ie rea
Holding Ponds f Solid Traps F13-70—Tiquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ® Yes p No
Discharge originated at: [3Lagoon M Spray Field N Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes M No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes. notify l)WQ) ® Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? 7500 ml/min
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes Ig 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 H No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Stricture 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
ldcntificr:
Freeboard(inches): ..............:.'............... .................................... .................... ............... .......................... .......... .................................... ....................................

[am i cty um er: 40-141 1)iitr n1' 1nliertirftr
15.
Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
M No
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
❑ Yes
® No
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
M Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
M No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
M No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
[]Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ® Excessive Ponding p PAN N Hydraulic Overload ❑ F
IS Yes
p No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CA)VW)?
❑ Yes
®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
p 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.)
p Yes
®No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
p No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
N Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
M No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
®No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
N Yes
❑ No
In No violations or deficiencies were noted —during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about is visit.
Comments (refer to question.ft Explain any YES answers 'and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
During a flyover, DWQ decided to conduct a compliance inspection.
25 - Irrigation reel was operating and the field appeared saturated.
7- Wastewater was spilling out of several locations along the aluminum pipe (joints and small hole in pipe),
adjacent to the houses. # I - Wastewater had ponded on the ground and flowed into a unnamed tributary.
1 & # 11 - Runoff was observed from the spray field into the same tributary due to saturated fields and/or
verapphcation. # 7 - The irrigation reel had malfunctioned and the gun cart was not moving.
Photos and samples were taken.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Daphne B. Cullom Lyn B. Hardison
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

.
051V/or
Continued
Date of Inspection
Facility Number: 40_141
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
la Yes
p No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
p Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e_ residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
0 Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
p Yes
® 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.)
p Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
p Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
p Yes
p No
The records were review on 3-31-2003 at the regional office.
Soil analysis 3-21-02 available - soil samples taken in the fall of 2002.
Waste analysis - 1-18-02 = 1.2 lbs, 6-5-02 = 2.71bs, 9-13-02 = 2.2lbs, 1-17-03 = 2.4 lbs, awaiting next results
19 - Irrigation records - IRR 2 should be completed w/ the nitrogen balance for coastal crop 2002 and small
grain 02-03.
15 - there are several areas in the spray field that does not appear to have much vegetation
Need to do the following - 1) Check the GPM of irrigation equipment and may need to calibrate the system. 2)
Get new waste analysis & complete all irrigation records w/ a current nitrogen balance. 3) repair the seals/ctc. of
he aluminum pipe. 4) contact the area agronomist for evaluation of the receiving crops.
5) Mark the irrigation pulls per the irrigation design.
22 - unaware of the runoff from the spray field or the area adjacent to the houses until notified by DWQ.
Aril 16, 2003
Second inspection to re -check of records, etc. as mentioned during the inspectton on 3-31-03.
The irrgiation gun has a 0.7" ring in place however it can be changed out to 0.94" ring.
It is suggested to used the smaller ring size in the fall/winter months.
e Area Agronomist conducted an evaluation of the crops on 4-4-03 and determined that 3 pulls (2,3 & 8) will
need to be resprigged this spring. Continue to following the Agronomist recommendations.
The lagoon levels are recorded weekly.
Irrigation records have been recalculated to include the nitrogen balance.
During this re -check the irrigation records were set-up on the Excel spreadsheet.
The freebaord levels was noted to be 22"
Ian to re -sprig pulls 2, 3 & 8 this spring. The grounds are being prepared (plowed, etc.)
If there are any other places that need re -sprigging, it is recommended to do so.
Need to cut and bale the small grain as soon as conditions permit.

p Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil:and Water Conservation
.p Other Agency.:,
Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other ❑ Denied Access
I]nicc ot, \ isit: 513t/2002 I ime: 900
Facility Number
Not Operational p Below i hreshold
Permitted E Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: L.H. Dixon Swine Farm #2 County: Greene ............................................... 3?V.Aki.Q.......
Owner Name: E.H. Dixon
Mailing Address: P.Q.Rox.488.....................................................................................
Facility Contact: ...............................................................................Title: ..................
Onsite Representative: 13ert..DixoA/.Greer.MaOre..............................................
Certified Operator:Henx..y..lYl.............................. Jordan........................................
Location of Farm:
a e 123 trom Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
Phone No: [phone]
11'1<anry...NG...........................................................- 28554..
PhoneNo: ......................................
Integrator: Premium.Standard,FArxus,.o .Nor.th...........
Operator Certification Number: x8r505 .............................
® Swine ❑ Poultry p Caitle p Horse Latitude ©s ® ©• Longitude ©• ® ©
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry
[3 Wean to Feeder
® reeder to FE
r3 Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
0 Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,800
Number of Lagoons © u sur ace Drains FreseFT-JJE3 LagoonArea_ [3 Spray He rea
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps] ❑ No iquiWaste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ®No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon p Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State" (If yes. notify DWQ) Cl Yes ❑ Na
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gar/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DW'Q) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ig No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway []Yes N No
Structure 1 Structure _' Structure 1 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): ...............%3................ .................................... ............. ................ .......................................... ............................. ...._.........._...................---..--.

Facility Number: 40-141
Dade of 11251)CCIi0n
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes p No
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?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Cl Yes N No
El Yes N No
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes ®No
M Yes ❑ No
p Yes N No
p Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes H No
p No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about Is visit.
Comments (refer to question #). Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments;
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
*Soil test dated 3/21/02 for 2001 crop year. Lime was applied at recommended rates with receipt on hand (1000 lbs/acre). Cu and Zn
Within guidelines. Remember to take soil test for 2002 and follow lime requirements.
waste analysis taken on 5/15/02 no results.
Waste analysis dated 1/18/02 nitrogen is 1.2 Ibs/1 000gallons
9/10/0) nitrogen is 0.98 lbs/1000 gallons
3/19/01 nitrogen is 2.60 lbs/1000 gallons
*Need to rebalance PAN for coastal bermuda when new waste analysis is received. No over application.
..A
Reviewer/Inspector Name Martin McLawhorn
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

05103101 Continued
Facility um er: 40_14l I)A(c of 111speel am
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
Yes
13 No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
p Yes
R No
28.
is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
p Yes
R No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
p Yes
® 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.)
p Yes
R No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
p Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
p Yes
p No
"Spray fields have been reworked on outer areas to improve drainage. Ditches have been regraded to improve drainage problems A�
from storm water. Coastal Bermuda spray field beside house has been resprigged. Coastal bermuda slow to emerge due to dry
condition. Continue to monitor coastal bermuda fields for weed conditions. Coastal bermuda has been sprayed 4X for weeds.
"*Lagoon level recorded March 1, 2002 at 25" freeboard and on April 26, 2002 freeboard was recorded at 36" with no irrigation
vents recorded on IRR2. Be sure to record all irrigation events. (l l" drop)
"Suggested to Mr. Dixon that he designate new OIC since Mr. Jordan no longer works at facility and is not able to monitor
"Trash needs to be removed from lagoon.
19. Missing two weeks of lagoon levels from 5/I/02 thru 5/20/02
'Between last house and ditch, aluminum pipe is laid for irrigation. Area around three joints of pipe appear to have ponding waste
luring irrigation events. Check pipes for proper fit and gaskets.

r 1%
� Dvision of 1'1'a#er Quality "
vision of Soil and Water Conservation -
Other Agency
Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other p Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 2/13/2l}02 Time- 8:35 am
p Not Operational p Below Threshold
Permitted U Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: I✓.H. Dixon Swine Farm #2 County: Grecne............................................... .W.AI3.O.......
Owner Name: E.H. Dixon Phone No: [phone]
MailingAddress: P.O..Boar.48R............................................................................................ Maury. -..NC ............................................................. 28554 ..............
FacilityContact: ...............................................................................Title:............................... ..... Phone No:..............
Onsite Representative: Hen.t:y1ardan............................................................................ Integrator: Premium.Standard..-arms-of.North...........
Certified Operator:Henry.M.............................. Jordan. .............................................. Operator Certification Number: 185d5_............... .............
Location of Farm:
a e 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on
N Swine p Poultry p Cattle p Horse Latitude ©a ®& ©« Longitude ©0 ®& ©
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ arrow t0 can
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer
p Non -Layer
p Other
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,800
Number of Lagoons 1 Jr3 Subsurface Drains Present p agoon rea p Spray �e rea
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? I] Yes N No
Discharge originated at: [3 Lagoon ❑ Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes p No
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ©Yes p No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaUrnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes p No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p 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? p Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ...............?a................

r It
ac. 1 y Number: 40_ 141 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees. severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes N 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? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintena,ice/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes g No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding p PAN p Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes p No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes © No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ®No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
H No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
U No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
In No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit, You will receive no urt er correspondence about this visit.
Comments refer to uestion # •,...Eg lain any YES answers and/or any recomiriendations' or any other comments. "
Use drawings of facility to better explaiii situations. (use additional pages as neeessarp)• ` -
g ty ❑Field Copy ❑Final Notes
Trash noted in lagoon. Continue to remove debris from lagoon as needed.
rea around the back side of lagoon past the top has been graded and seeded.
Continue to address weeds in sprayfields.
Small grain is established in certain fields.
Reviewed records on February 14, 2002.
Waste analysis: 1/18/02 = 1.2 lbs.; 9/10/01 = 0.98 lbs.; 3/19/01 = 2.6 lbs.
Soil analysis 4/18/01 is for year 2000. Awaiting results from year 2001. (SEE PAGE 3)
Reviewer/Inspector Name Lyn,BHanson _; _ entered by Ante; Tyndall_
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

05=03/0I Continued
1.19 ace ity Number- 40_141 Date of Inspection
Odor issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
13 yes
p No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there. any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
p Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e, residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
Yes
N No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
p Yes
® 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.)
p Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
p Yes
® No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged pill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes
[]No
Suggest to et written documentation from Ma Supply when they pull soil samples and gg g Maury pp keep this in the. .+.
books.
Make sure to change the PAN allowance in the records from 100 to 50 lbs.
Irrigation records are complete and balanced out.
reeboard levels are recorded weekly as required.
The drainage ditches have been worked on (regraded etc). Also regrading on some of the fields has been done to
improve the condition of the field slope.
Records are well organized.
f you have any questions, contact your Technical Specialist or us at 252-946-6481.
** Make sure to have copies of all the soil analyses in your manual.

f
am k
andi
01 27 Y
1` f MM, ,
Cem
--
a-
v. l�4-
1355
8rJ.- I I. ❑i�Can Swia'rn
f
23.7 i pac;OsiN�-
i
1 r 3
•
BM'. , s` Aihienc
i 23.7 fiek!
f a•� A Maury
Ck c Friendahlp
903
Cem • rt— —k e 1 Cem.•
\ -
f 20'"f Ifs _ ' � -Y —23
i ,�-..
245
ti n
0
21.
Grave .
_Ce
Name: HOOKERTON Location: 035' 29' 22.5" N 0771 36' 36.6" W
Date: 10/30/102 Caption: E.H. Dixon Swine Farm 2
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
(C) 1997.

Ybo

4 ! -
p Division of;Water Quality
! Division of Sorl:and Water Conservation
0Other Agency
(Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other p Denied Access
Facility Number t3a�c of \ i.it: 711012©OI I inic: 1405
p Not Operational p Below Threshold
K Permitted N Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshnld :.......................
Farm Name: E.H. Dixon Swine Farm #2 Count-v: Glrxene............................................... ..WARO.......
Owner Name: E.H. Dixon Phone No: [phone]
MailingAddress: P.O-.fax.9................................................................................................. Maury—INC .......... . ................................................. Z855.4 ..............
Facilitv Contact: ...............................................................................Title: ......... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Heue:}.,JordanlBert.Dkon................................................... Integrafor: Carnlina.Farms...... ...................... .........................
Certified Operator: Henry ..................................... jorAaR .............................................. Operator Certification Number: 18505 ....... ......................
Location of Farm:
a e 123 from Maury to Lizzie, left on 1334
�J
�I
® Swine p Poultry p Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0• ® ©•• Longitude ©• ®1 ©11
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
p Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
p Boars
❑ ayer
p Non -Layer
p Other
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,800
Number of Lagoons ISubsurface Drains Present p Lagoon Xrea JE3 Spray Fieldrea
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps F13 17o Liquid Waste Management Sysiern
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: []Lagoon p Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes p No
b. if dischar��e is observed, did it reach Water of the State`? (If yes. notit}. DWQ) 0 Yes ©No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in t*al/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? p Yes N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [3Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 0 Spillway p Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 STRIcture b
Identilser:

acl tty umber:- 40_t41 Dale of 111spuciioii
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes N 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? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? p Yes ® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes p No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? p Yes p No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ®No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
p Yes
N 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? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
p Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
24_
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
®No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ® No
ID No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visi�
Cotrimehts (refer to question #): `Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):`Field Copy ❑Final Notes
° Waste plan dated 10/27/00 based on wetted acres. WA Determination signed by Bert Dixon and Mike Reagan.
'Soil test dated 4/18/01. Approx. 500 lbs lime was applied per acre. All fields sampled require> one ton lime per acre. Ned to follow
lime recommendations and keep lime receipts_
19. Missing soil test for year 2000 as noted in DWQ report.
'Waste analysis dated 3/19/01 sample 91=2.4 Ibs/1000 gallon and sample 42= 2.6 Ibs/1000 gallons.
'Discussed IRR2/waste analysis schedule.
'New waste analysis taken on 7/05 01. No results.
'Lagoon level being recorded weekly as required by permit. �
IReviewerAnspector Name Martin McLawhorn

� , r
O5103101
Facility Number: 40_141
Odor Issues
Dale of Inspection
Confinued
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
p No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
13 Yes
® No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
p Yes
® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
Yes
® 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.)
p Yes
® No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
p Yes
® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
p Yes p No

0 Division of Water Quality �;
Division of Soil and Water Conservation s "J, i t
0 Other Agency �.
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection QQ Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit © Routine Q Complaint O Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit. 8/16l2000 Time: 83o Printed on: 3/92001
Facilit►- Number a© 14l
-- - -- 0 Not Operational O Below Threshold
® Permitted M Certified © Conditionally Certifled 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .....................
Farm Name: la.H.1et1.x47iue F`......................................... County: ltj1>;............................................... V!'.......
O%yner Name: UL........................................ Ai10[t....................... .................... ................ Phone No: (,252)..7.4-.5555........................................................
F:►cility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Mailing .Address: 1'0.8AX Q.............................. ...... 1a1dJC1:..I\[C............. ........... .,................................... 2�5�4.�........ ........ .........
Onsite Representatne: Scri.A.lx.a!n..... .............................................. ................................. Integrator: CdtR'QbnaLJFAalms.....................................................
Certified Operator: Hrj%t'y..1%............. .... Jard_aa........ .. Operator Certification Number: 1950.5.
Location of Farm:
Take 123 from Mann• to Lizzie, left on 1334
qr
® Swine ❑Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse L<etitude 35 ` 29 22 Longitude 77 * 3G 37
Design Current
Swine Canacitv Poinulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
7680
7660
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry' PopulationCattle
Capacity Population
❑ Laver ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Laver 10Non-Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,800
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ❑ Spr;►� FieIJ 1:E-
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discl�ytar yes & Stream Imnacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
,t. if discharge is observed. �i as the contveyaucu mai►-made:' ❑ Yes ❑ No
b- If discharge is ob,�,:rved. did it reach Water of the State`.' elf yes. notiffi- DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. Il disohame is obsenvd. what is the estimated flow in eal/min?
d. Does discharge b3,pa.4 a lagoon system? (ll'yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes M 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 M No
Sn-u�;Iare I Structure 2 Structure., Structure d Sinw-ture 5 Strucriire fi
Idcntifcr:
Ir:eboard ('inuhetii:...............40............................................,.............................................................................•...................................•...................................

5/00 Continued on buck
l*acility Number: 40-141 Date oi;n*pe tion $116/2ti00 Printed ()n: 3/9/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion_ ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ 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? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate. gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes CK No
Waste AVVlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes X No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Grace) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAV,MP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Rcnuired 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? (iel irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ® Yes ❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes Z No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) Yes No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes X No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes X No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further
correspondence about this visit,
Comments (refer to question 0): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better -explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
*Irrigation system is traveler. A�
*irrigation design is complete waiting for Greene Soil and Water to complete waste plan based on wetted acres to match irrigation design.
1RR-2 will be calculated by pulls once wetted acres complete.
*Lagoon level being recorded weekly as required by permit_
*Waste anahsis dated 2/14/00. Nitrogen is 1.I lbs/1000 gallons_ Waste sample taken on 8115/t)0. No results_
*Soil test taken on 2/8/99. Lime was applied at recommended rates. Remember to take soil test for this year.
19. Need to recalculate PAN balism fat: coastal betmuda once new waste analysis received.
-I
Reviewer/Inspector Name

40 Division of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit © Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation O Other
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number 40 141 Date of Visit 1 3-21-2000 Printed on: 3/31/2000
Q Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
0 Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......... ............
Farm Name: F„D..1�Ax101a.S.lXiltt�. kalClfl .#�....
County: G.reme............................................... .PARQ.......
OwnerName: E.k1........................................... JD.jxQ>a................ .............. ............................. Phone No: (5 �.7 7rS. S........................................................
Facility Contact:..............................................................................Title Phone No
Mailing Address: P.Q.8OX...............
Hama..N.0............................................................. 2.8.55.4 .............
Onsite Representative: ��]Cy.>jQ1Cd t1a. �C l jxQB.................................................. Integrator:CArolixta.F0rma..................... ................. ...............................
Certified Operator: Utin Cy..M ...............................jardalt.............................................. Operator Certification Number:J,$S.QS..............................
Location of Farm:
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .&
®Swine []Poultry []Cattle ❑ Hor Latitude 35 • 29 22 Longitude 77 36 37
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
7680
--7500
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Laver I d 1[:) Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I JCI Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,800
Number of Lagoons 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ lagoon .area JE1 Spray Field .area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
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) El Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4, is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:........................................................................................................... ..........................
Freeboard (inches): 24.5

Continued on back
Facility Number: 40-141 I Date of Inspection T21-2000 Printed on: 3/31/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes N 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? ❑ Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
N 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
N No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
N Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
N No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
N No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
N No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
U No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further
correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
14. Brock Irrigaion completed Wettable Acreage Determination and it has been submitted to the Greene Co. SWCD to revise the
WUP. *Reminder to update & transfer records to match new WUP.
19. IRR-2 forms should be completed with a nitrogen balance for Tract 1213, field 2, Tract 1085, field 2, 3, & 4 and submitted to the
WaRO for review. Last waste analysis 2-14-2000, 1.1 lbs./1000 gals., 10-19-1999, 1.5 lbs./1000 gals.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Daphne g, Cullom
l
„�.�• 3-33 z�
T

Lviewer/llnspector Signature: Date:
Facility Number: 40-141 Date of Inspection 3-21-2000 Printed on: 3/31/2000
Odor Issues
26. 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?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. 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)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® 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.) ❑ Yes ®No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ®No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

© Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Review
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
® Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
[3 Other Agency - Operation Review =
ltouline 0 0mipiaiul Q Farlloss-u t all' D�1'Q in, ection Q Follos%-u 1 of DSVVC re% iesi Q Other
- 1 .+riiit� uI111x r 40 - 141 Date o1 hispectton 717199
Time. orinspec•tion 14:00 24 hr. (hh:mm)
ja Permitted N Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified [I Registered 1E1 Not Open Date bast Operated:
FArm Name: E.1 )i uxt.5w1m1w=.#2...................................................................... G. AROCount.: rcenc............................................... R.......
O%sner Name: E,11.�................ ......................... Dixon ........................................................... Phone No: (2Sx).:L4175555........................................ ........ ........
Facilit.N. Contact: IGr XI.DIdoAII....................................................... Title: AnatAAger............................ ................. Phone No....................................................
Mailing, Address: PO.RQxAlit......................... .. Maury ..NC............................................................. 2,85.5-1 .............
Onsite Reprrsentaiis v: Heroin'.1orldn-......................... .._......................................_....... Integrator: Gon it>. Mal.Grttlta...............................................
Certified Operator: Henry.M..........- :.......... ....... d.ordan .............................................. Operator Certification Number: .I85A�5.............................
L<x ation of Farm:
Latitude 35 • 29 22 �••
Design Current
Swine Canacity Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
7680
5243
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
longitude F77 • !! 36 7 ••
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population, Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer JE1 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Nan -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,800
Number of Lagoons f ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischart+es ,1 Stream Ln�t%
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Diseliargu origivaied at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If dischi ic: is observed. ssa; the coiweN ancc man -wade'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discltltt-ge is obsovc(1. did it reach Waier of the State? (If }es. no fs DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If dischargc is observed. nhat is the estimated floe itt-'aliumi"
d. Does dischargc hs pas; a lagoon ;)'steel'' (IfNc;. 11011fN DW Q) ❑ 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 moorage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
tiIk 11CWrC i `lru,eItlrc " 41rllt:[ti C : StrltCltin: 4 ti1RMIIR: tiIRldtlrc a,
Ido011iu' . ...............2.C....... ............
l'fCCbs171Pd I111lhCy) .........................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion. ❑ Yes ENO
seepage. etc.)
N23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: 40-- idl Date of Inspection
6.. Are there structures on -site %%hick 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 vkFaste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any strictures lack adequate_ ganged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
14 aste :application
10. Are there anv buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ® PAN
12. Crop type Bermuda Small Grain
D. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAVJMP)?
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?
Required Record i & Ilnvutnents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readih.- available'?
(ie/ WLTP, checklists. design. maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Printed on 312012000
7/719�I
I Yes
IN
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yea
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
❑ No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further
correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question It): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
11. Over -applied as per DSWC report. Will receive Deficiency Notice.
❑ Yes X No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
[:]Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑Yes El No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
t�l
Reviewer/Inspector Name Carl Dunn Entered by Ann Tvndall
Raviawar/lnenpotnr ManOtllrO- dater• i

Printed on 3/20/2000
Facik) umber: 44-141 Date 4Inspection 7l7199
Odor k�iuv�,
26. 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?
27, Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. 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)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fau(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ® No

Ccrl ILLnri
State of North Carolina
Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Washington Regional Office
James B. Bunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
April 7, 1999
Mr. E.H. Dixon
Post Office Box 488
Maury, NC 28554
ffl�.�WA
17 0 0
OL
NCDENR
FORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT DF
ENVIRONMENT ANo NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBJECT: Operation Review Notices of Referral for
EH Dixon Swine Farm #2, Facility Number 40-1
Vandiford Swine Farm, Facility Number 40-7
Greene County
Operation Review Summary for
Dixon Swine Farm, Facility Number 40-15
Dear Mr. Dixon,
�j
APR - 7 mg U
WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFU
On March 31, 1999, Operation Reviews were conducted of the Dixon Swine Farm,
facility number 40-15, EH Dixon Swine Farm #2, facility number 40-141, and Vandiford
Swine Farm, facility number 40-7. These Reviews, undertaken in accordance with G.S.
143-215.1 OD, are one of two visits scheduled for all registered livestock operations
during the 1999 calendar year. The Division of Water Quality will conduct a second
compliance inspection later this year.
Facility 40-141 (E.H. Dixon Swine Farm #2) experienced an over application of 40.4
pounds of animal waste PAN (plant available nitrogen) per acre on tract 1085, field 3.
The 1998-99 small grain overseed crop has a maximum PAN rate of 100 pounds per
acre according to the waste plan but had received a total of 140.4 pounds of PAN per
acre according to the irrigation records. Also, tract 1085, fields 11, 12 and 13 are listed
in the certified animal waste management plans for both facility 40-141 and facility 40-7
(Vandiford Swine Farm). Until this issue is resolved, both of the certified plans are
considered noncompliant with current regulations.
Facility 40-7 experienced an over application of animal waste. A maximum of 54
pounds PAN per acre was applied during the winter months to the dormant Coastal
Bermuda which was not overseeded with a small grain crop. On April 5, 1999 1 spoke
to Brian Tingen, technical specialist with the Greene Soil and Water Conservation
District, and he relayed that he had not provided a conditional amendment to the waste
plan to allow for this application.
943 Washington Square Mail, Washington, North Carolina 27889-3532 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. E.H. Dixon
April 7, 1999
Page 2
It is because of the aforementioned reasons that both operations were referred to the
Division of Water Quality for further investigation and possible enforcement action.
G.S. 143-215.10E requires me to notify the Division of Water Quality and the
owner/operator of these observed violations.
Copies of the Operation Review reports, including the Dixon Swine Farm, facility
number 40-15, are enclosed for your information. Please make special note of the
comment sections on pages 2 and 3 for additional comments and recommendations.
The wettable acre determination requirement for the Vandiford Swine Farm was
removed due to the available irrigation design information on file with the Greene Soil
and Water Conservation District which was reviewed on April 6, 1999.
'-TZMrFnber that in order for your facility to be in compliance with environmental
regulations, animal waste cannot be discharged into the waters of the State, and the
animal waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal systems must be properly
sized, maintained and operated under the responsible charge of a certified operator.
The Division of Soil and Water Conservation appreciates your cooperation with this
Operation Review. Please do not hesitate to call me at 252/946-6481 if you have any
questions, concerns or need additional information.
Sincerely,
'pa, 410u�
Pat Hooper
Environmental Engineer I
CC' Greene Soil and Water Conservation District
Carl Dunn, Division of Water Quality
WaRO DSWC Files

State of North Carolina
Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Washington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
April 7, 1999
Mr. Charles Vandiford
Route 1, Box 233
Snow Hill, NC 28580
AILY 0
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
SUBJECT: Operation Review Notice of Referral for
Vandiford Swine Farm, Facility Number 40-7
Greene County
Dear Mr. Vandiford,
On March 31, 1999, an Operation Review was conducted of the Vandiford Swine Farm,
facility number 40-7. This Review, undertaken in accordance with G.S. 143-215.1 OD,
are one of two visits scheduled for all registered livestock operations during the 1999
calendar year. The Division of Water Quality will conduct a second compliance
inspection later this year.
The operation experienced an over application of animal waste. A maximum of 54
pounds PAN per acre was applied during the winter months to the dormant Coastal
Bermuda which was not overseeded with a small grain crop. On April 5, 1999 1 spoke
to Brian Tingen, technical specialist with the Greene Soil and Water Conservation
District, and he relayed that he had not provided a conditional amendment to the waste
plan to allow for this application. Also, tract 1085, fields 11, 12 and 13 are listed in the
certified animal waste management plans for both facility 40-7 (Vandiford Swine Farm)
and facility 40-141 (E.H. Dixon Swine Farm #2). Until this issue is resolved, both of the
certified plans are considered noncompliant with current regulations.
It is because of the aforementioned reasons that both operations were referred to the
Division of Water Quality for further investigation and possible enforcement action.
G.S. 143-215.10E requires me to notify the Division of Water Quality and the
owner/operator of these observed violations.
A copy of the Operation Review report is enclosed for your information. Please make
special note of the comment sections on pages 2 and 3 for additional comments and
recommendations.
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889.3532 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Charles Vandiford
April 7, 1999
Page 2
Remember that in order for your facility to be in compliance with environmental
regulations, animal waste cannot be discharged into the waters of the State, and the
animal waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal systems must be properly
sized, maintained and operated under the responsible charge of a certified operator.
The Division of Soil and Water Conservation appreciates your cooperation with this
Operation Review. Please do not hesitate to call me at 252/946-6481 if you have any
questions, concerns or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Pat Hooper
Environmental Engineer
cc: Greene Soil and Water Conservation District
Carl Dunn, Division of Water Quality
E.H. Dixon, Lessee
WaRO DSWC Files

Division of Sail and Water Conservation - Operation Review
p Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
Division of Water,Quality. Com Hance Inspection';......
13 Other'A' ere O per Review
10 Routine 0 (.-Omplaint 0 rollow-up of uN� t) inspection o roflov*-up of DS%N t review 0 Other
f Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 1410 - ] 24 hr. (hh:mm)
w Permitted M Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered113 Not Upei­777raq Date Last Operated:
FarmName: Vandi-ford..Sys:inz.Earm............................................................................. Count)-: Greene WARO
Owner Natne:.....................................
Facilih, Contact: EIIDixna .........
Yanraciclxw............................................ Phone No: 252-.7.a.3-49Z2........................................ ...................
.................................Title: Lessep............................. ...... .....-..... .... Phone No: 252.-.7.4.7..-,5M5...... -..............
Mailing Address: Rt.I.B�ox 3a.............................................. ........................................... Snow.Hi.U.NC......................................................... 2858ft .............
Onsite Representative: Henri%J rd.am............................................................................ Integrator: Gar.olina.Ear;m7s....................................................
Certified Operator:Hear.yAL............................. J.orlon............................................... Operator Certification Number:lMS............................
Location of Farm:
AL
Ll�.�ate�d.on.S.tate.lid...1 3�.fr.Axnf.1 ;,;� 3;�n a�r;Lizza ;a�Bpxax.; ;Agile.orx.ktteaetl ........................................................----....
.........................................................................................................
.�
Latitude O6 �� ��� Longitude De �44
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ can to ceder
® ee er to mts
p Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
❑ Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ airy
❑ . on- ayer ❑ on- airy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 9,000
Total SSLW 1,215,000
Number of Lagoons
10
Subsurface
Drains
Present 110
Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field area
Holding Ponds [Solid Traps_
❑
o
Liquid Waste
Management
System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon p 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? p Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
'Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: #.i...............
Freeboard(inches): ............... 27................ .................................... ................................... .......... .......................... ....... ............................. ....
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
3/23/99 seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes ® No
Continued on back

OF
Facility Number: 40_7 Date of Inspection 3/31199
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? 0 Yes ENO
(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? ® Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? p Yes E No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
E No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11_ Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding E PAN
® Yes
❑ No
12_ Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
H No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
® Yes
p No
c) Does this facility lack adequate documentation to make a determination of adequate acreage?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
0 Yes
E No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WCfP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
N No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
E Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
0 Yes
®No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
D Yes
H No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
E Yes
❑ No
kl . No.violitions:vr.-de:f'cienvies:were.unted'duril'gA' is :visit. _Yaw. wvill.receive, na further : -. -
ekr� s*pkdeuce: about this:visit:: :::..: ::::: ::: :: :: _ ,
Comments (refer to question #)::Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use,drawings of facility to better expIain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
....
* Recommend signiiig'up for Neuse:Rule options by 8/l/99 with%ihd Greene Soil,&. Water Conservation District, .
* Given Integrator Registration card-
* Keeping lagoon level records as required.
* Waste analysis report dated 3/12r99 at 3.8 lbs/1000 gal. Soils.ap#a ysis report dated 2,'8/99 Jame applied 2 weeks ago
to address.bare spots on lagoon (vegetate d i .- `)"era
p g g
7 Need and maintaindicate rats and'ie air tunriel�n lama a as needed.
P.
11. _ Amaximum of 54 lbs PAN/acre applied during winter monflis'to Coastal Bermuda which was dormant. Mr. Jordan felt this
was permissible because of conditional amendment by Technical Specialist, Brain Tinges. Conditional amendment for soybean
PAN rates only. Spoke to Mr. Tingen on 4/5/99 ,.;Permission was'not granted to spray waste on Coastal Bermuda during winter
months: Oneratiori-w�Il be referreff,16DWO for'avnlication of viasfe outside of craovine windows.`
Reviewer/Inspector Name
P Pat H_ oop er 252/946-6481 Marti McLawhorn Patrick Fussell
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: < <jf� - / Date: A /i /o

14
3 /23/99
ace its' N um cr: 40_7
Odor Issues
Date of Inspection 3T
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below p Yes p No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? p Yes p No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, p Yes []No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? p Yes []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.) p Yes p No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes p No
32. Do the flush tanks Iack a submerged fIl pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes © No

Division of Soil and Water" Conservation Operation Review
p Division of Soil and, Water�Conservatiou`- Comm bance Inspection
p Division of Water Quality = Compliance Inspection
>` p Other Agency.- Operation: eviewn =
I• Koutine p complaint O kollow-up of JJWV inspection p Hollow -up of D!)WL review o Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
M Permitted M Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 113 Not perationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: E.H..Dis:on_Swine.Farm322..................................................................... County: Greene WARO
OwnerName: L11.................. ... Dixan. .......... ................................................ Phone No: 252-1.4%-555.5...........................................
Facility Contact: ...............................
Title:............................................................... Phone No:..............................................
Mailing Address: P.O.Boa.4.81I....................................................................................... Maury-INC ............................................................. 28.554 ..............
Onsite Representative: Henry,Jordan............................................................................ Integrator: Carolina.Farms.....................................................
Certified Operator: Regry.,lid,Reary.AL ............................. Jordan.............................................. Operator Certification Number: IR5AS.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 06 ®� �u Longitude 36 Du
Swine Capacity Population
pVv can to ee er
® Feeder to rms
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ er
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,800
Number of Lagoons
❑
-- sur ace
rains
ent
res❑
agoon rea ❑ pray ie rea
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps
❑
'o LiquidWaste
Management
System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 1K No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a_ If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: #.]...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(inches):....... ....... 28.......................................... ...................................... .................................... .................... ._.......... .... .... ................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes Ig No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: 4Q_ 141 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ 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? la Yes C1 No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes Zj No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ® PAN
Ig Yes
p No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
IM No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
® Yes
p No
c) Does this facility lack adequate documentation to make a determination of adequate acreage?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
x No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
p 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.)
p Yes
® No
19, Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
® Yes
❑ No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
® Yes
p No
C1. So.viotatioins_or. de icierrcies.were:r'nnted:durin_ g•this•visit.-during. receive na further.:.:.
. • . - ,Ckr�446 deke aboirf this.vlsit. - . - . - . . ... . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . ... ... .. . ..... •.
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/orany recommendations or any other comments
:Use drawings of facility to better etplain situations (use. additional pa(pes as necessary).`
x Recommend signing up for Neuse Rule options by 8/11199 with the Greene Soil & Water Conservation District �
x Given Integrator Registration card --
Waste sample dated 3112199 at 2.1; lbs/1000=-¢al.-Soils'.report dated2/8199 - lime applied ,�2 weeks ago
S. Drainageway converted to grassed waterway on tract 108.5 between fields 3 & 4. Work completed 3/27/99 - needs to be seeded
and stabilized. In process of cleaning out perifeter ditch around lagoon. Need to stabilize outlets of storm water
drainagewav/diversiomi between houses & lagoon; contact technical specialist for help to shape low spots to enhance drainage:
11 _ For small grain overseed on tract 1085, field 3 with PAN at 100 lbs/acre - over applied by 40.4 Ibs for a total of.140.4 ftiacre.
WEI be referred to DWQ. All other fields are okay.
COMMENTS CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 +
Reviewer/Inspector Name pat Hooper 252/946-649.1 Martin A cLawh n Patrick Fussell
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:` Date: 1-7 9 -

3/23/99
aci ttv _ umber: 40_141 Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or laCIoan fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes ❑ 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 []No
28. 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)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? []Yes ❑ 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.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
1. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? C] Yes p No
32_ Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14b. Brock Irrigation will be making wettable acre determination within 60 days. Operation unable to pass 75% rule and is subject
to wettable acre determination., Operation has access to honey wagon. Waste plan will need tobe-amendedbased on wettable acres
15. Spray -fields treated with 24D with Coastal Bermuda resprigge&around March' 15
19. Need to separate FRR2 records according to crop with small grain overseed of 100 lbs/acre and Coastal Bermuda (depending on
soil type) at either 190 or 235 lbs/acre.'PAN
* Certificate of Coverage on site as previously requested
25 ,: Tract 1085, fields 12, 13 & 14 are:,fisted in operation's waste plan AND in the plan for facility 40-007: These fields can only bE
listed once in one certified waste plan. Until discrepancy is corrected, the certified waste plans for -both operations are noncomplian
with current regulations

Division of Soil and Water Conservation -_Operation Review
[3 Division _of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
p Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
p Other A.-ency - Operation Review
jig Routine G Complaint p kolloFs-up of U%%Q inspection p rollow-up of review p Other I
Facility Number Date of Inspection 3/31199
Time of Inspection 0 24 hr. (hh:mm)
N Permitted E Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 0 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Dixon.Sine.EarnL...................................................................................... County: Greene WARO
Owner Name: E..H..
Facility Contact: ....................
Nlailing Address: P..O.Rox.489........
Dix.on.......................................................... Phone No: Z52-.717-.5555 .......................
Title:............................................................... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Beary.Jardan,.E.H..Dixon....................................
Certified Operator: Heary.AL............................. Jordan......
Location of Farm:
...... Maurx.XC............................................................... 2,855.4 ..............
Integrator: Carolina.Earms......................
Operator Certification Number:IR50 .............................
y
or.a �r..at.......................... rr.a md_. erlul_e , Y au�r:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.....................
Latitude Longitude
Swine Capacity Population
p can to ceder
® ceder to F
4 9-')
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer 10 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ on- any
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 5,520
Total SSLW 745,200
Number of Lagoons ❑ 5-1 surface rains resent ❑ Lagoon Area p pray ie rea
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Dlscbarues & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes Ig No
Discharve ori;inated at: ❑ Lagoon p Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
L-
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify D1h1Q) p Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ® No
Waste CoIlectioh & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes X No
Structure 1
Identifier: ...............fir.] ...............
Freeboard (inches): ...............28........
Structure 2 Structure 3
Structure 4 Structure 5
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion,
3i23/99 seepage, etc.)
Structure b
...................................
p Yes ® No
Continued on back

Facility Number: 40-15 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? []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? ❑ Yes Ig No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? []Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
Ili No
Write Application
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding p PAN
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
® Yes
p No
c) Does this facility lack adequate documentation to make a determination of adequate acreage?
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
p 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? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
CC Yes
p No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
®No
CE: N.n'.V_16 adons.o�r. idefclea'de-s-were-:lintedi.dtrring.thes visit_:You- iwill:rei e_ive_ na further.:'. :.
.. . . . .. . ...... .
:•:• corxes�odde�ce:aboirXthjs:vasit:..:::•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•.-:•:....•.-:.•.-:�:-:-:-:-:�:�:
Comments (refer to question #): _Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments
Use drawing of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
* Recornmend signing up for Neuse Rule options by 8/1/99 with the Greene Soil & Water Conservation District
* Given Integrator Registration card
* Keeping lagoon level records as required.
* Waste sample dated 3/12/99 @ 2.1 lbs/1000 gal.
* Soils report dated 10/20/98 with lime applied two weeks ago.
14b. Operation_ needs a wettable acre determination. Waste plan based on 100% total acres however operation has a honey wagon.
Will need to know which acres are under irrigation and what will be covered by honey wagon for record keeping purposes. Brock
Irrigation planning to measure fields within 60 days for wettable acre determination.
15. Coastal Bermuda snrav fields snraved with 24D around March 15. Coastal resnrigged March 15.
IReviewer/Inspector Name Pat Hooper 252/946-6481 Marti%McLawhornf Patrick Fussell I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: y /-n fl/ Date: A l

3'23 "99
acf ity l um er: 40_ 15 Date of Inspection
O[Ior Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vege€ation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e_ broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
I. 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
p Yes
❑ No
❑Yes
No
❑ Yes
D No
p Yes
p No
p Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
p No

® Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Revievr
ti © Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
0 Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
E3 Other.Agency - Operation Review _
e lioutrne Q Complaint Q Foll(vr%-u r o1' I)SW(' res ie`s Q 01[ter
Facilitr Number
Date Ott' hi,pectiwi 3131/99
- - fimc• of ln.pec6ou 1250 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 9 Certified ® Conditionall} Certified El Registered JEJ Nut Operational 1Date Lasi Operated:
Farm Name:.1Ef. Rit2iQlu.l�Ant .1EaetA2.....
Countti: Gkee]ae.........
WARD......
Owner Name: E&............................. .............. il)iaata......_....................... Phone No;252m7.3:L-SS,5S.........................................,.................
Faeilit` Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Mailing Addres%: P0_.EiU.N.48_R .................................. ......... Mnnnu--_-NC............................................................. 285M .............
On.iw Repre.%cnt:,ti<<: Jbiary:.jol:dan............................................................................. Integrator: C.8r.Q1lXla. 4rM....................................................
C'crtitied Operator: Jelpxy..]+j�L........ .................. J.Qrdan............................................ .. Operator Certification Number:.18505.........................
Location nl' Farm:
Latitude I.ongitude 77 • ®' t 37
Design Current
Swine CADRCitV Pooutation
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
7680
7300
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow- to Finish,
❑ crilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ L JE3 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,800
A,
Number of Lagoons 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present JJCJ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management Sv-stew
Discharge%&- Stream Impacts
I - Is anv discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes ®No
D1Nc,l,arge originated at. ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. V divcliarLe is obsen-ed- ,N as tlic convc,. ance mail-ruade :' ❑ Yes ❑ No
h. I['di-cJiarge is ohscn-vd. did it read, Ci atcr of [lie State? (I1'�es. notil% IAA 0) ❑ Yes ❑ No
,;. If dkcharpe i,; oh'erved- lAilat is [lie catimaled Ikm in gal-Y,rin'
d. Doc, discharge h-,pas a lagos:ru (If%Cs. uolifi D"'Q) ❑ 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'? ❑ Spillwav ❑ Yes ®No
tilrrr�ulrc l ylru+atrrc 2 Ismicotiv a tiIrucaulu I tiIrtjotlrc strnc. mu 0
Id4nhllcr il>.........
I rccNim-d t inchc, I 28„
5. Are there anv immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees. severe erosion. ❑ Yes ® No
seepage. etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility'Number. 40-141 (kite of Impuction
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 maintenancc/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuetures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Write ,application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ® PAN
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Qverseed
Printed on 3/20/2000
3131199
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
M No
® Yes
❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes M No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes M No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ® Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes M No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes M No
Required Record, cti Doculitcnts
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 M No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) M Yes ❑ No
20, Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems. over application) ❑ Yes M No
23. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ® Yes ❑ No
❑ No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further
correspondence about this visit. J
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary).
* Recommend signing up for Neuse Rule options by 8/l /99 with the Greene Soil & Water Conservation District Ak
* Given Integrator Registration card
* Waste sample dated 3/12/99 at 2.1 lbs/1000 gal. Soil, report dated 2/8/99 - lime applied ---2 weeks ago
8. Drainageway converted to grassed waterway on tract 1085 between fields 3 & 4. Work completed 3/27/99 - needs to be seeded and
stabilized. In process of cleaning out perimeter ditch around lagoon. Need to stabilize outlets of storm water drainageway/diversion
between houses & lagoon; contact technical specialist for help to shape low spots to enhance drainage.
11. For small grain overseed on tract 1085. field 3 with PAN at 100 lbs/acre - over applied by 40.4 lbs for a total of 140.4 lbs/acre.
Will be referred to DWQ. All other fields are okay.
Reviewer/Impector Name pat Hooper 252/946-6481 Martin McLawhorn Patrick Fussell
Revipvvortlmnoetrw Cionattirr• tlato•

Printed on 312012000
1.
'Facility Number: 40-141 13utc oi- lnspectinn 3I31199
Odor l %ues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below Yes 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 ❑ No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.c. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, [j Yes ❑ No
roads, building structure, and/or public properly)
29_ Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, musing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters. etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lacy a submerged: fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
A M onal Comments and/or Drawings:
rl
14b. Brock Irrigation will be making wettable acre determination within 60 days. Operation unable to pass 75% rule and is subject to
"-citable acre determination. Operation has access to honey wagon. Waste plan will need to be amended based on wettable acres.
15. Sprayfields treated with 24D with Coastal Bermuda resprigged around March 15.
19. Need to separate HUU records according to crop with small grain overseed at 100 lbslacre and Coastal Bermuda (depending on soil
type) at either 190 or 235 lbs/acre PAN
* Certificate of Coverage on site as previously requested
25_ Tract 1085. fields 12; 13 & 14 are listed in operation's waste plan AND in the plan for facility 40-007. These fields can only be
listed once in one certified waste plan. Until discrepancy is corrected, the certified waste plans for both operations are noncompliant
with current regulations..

E Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Operation Review
© Division of Soil and Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
0 Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
0 Other Agency - OperadonReview
tt Routine Q Com tlabit Q Fiillo1VV-up ot• DV1'Q inspection 0 Follo►i-u ofDSWC res ieiN 0 [3tluvr
Facility Nuniher Date of Inspectioll 3/29199
Time of In lwdion i250 24 hr. (hh:mm)
i Permitted U. Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified t- Registered 0 1'oi O eratiunal Dxtc Lu0 Operated: ..........................
Farm Name: ......
County: Greeme............................................... Wd►RO.......
O+►nerName: l,H,......................................... Di,�. n........................................................... PFioneNc►: 2.5z-.7..7.- S S..........................................................
Facility Contact: ................................................................ .... Title Phoii No:
MailingAddress: P.O.Box.489............................................................................................ Maury ..NC............................................................. 28S5..............
Onsite RepresentatiN c: Hgjn C3..,1.R]Cd"............................................................................. integrator: �.at0hWA F.at Ft15.....................................................
Certified Operator: Henry.M................. ........------ .IOrdam............................................. Operator Certification \umber:.I85A,S... .............. ............
1,ocation of Farm:
...I23.fitxtmt.A�alatx...ta.Lizz......lett.an....,3�...........................-................................................
...........................................................................,.....,.,.....................................................................................:........................................................,.......................................
Latitude 35 • 29 22 Longitude 77 • ®• 1 37 -
A6
qV
Design
swine Capacity
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish 7680
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Current
Population
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
ElLayer 10 Dait�,-
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity- 7,680
Total SSLW 1,036,80071
7300
Number of Lagoons JE1 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spra} 1 field .Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Ukchatrg,vs & ttrc.mm llnt,:l� t
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Di,Jim got; ongiiiatcd al. ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field []Other
a. II'd i
is observed. was the coin-cy;ulue matt -made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. Il'tli�uh:ugd is obvurvud. did it reap-,h 1A alur oi'tliv ~late•? (Ifyes- notify D%VQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. il-di,4chargu is observed. t.liat i; the c.tiinated llow in 9-al/min?
d. Does di.%;hargc a 01 yes. notiti I)WQ) ❑ 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
NVmte Collection h: l'reatinent
4. Is storage capaciri° (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate" ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
tilrn.lur� I llrltl4tErr4 �' till���Uu� -€ ti3ru�€ulr i �h"l�itul'c � �Irll�lurcto
Idcwitiwr............... #I...............
F rcuboard I inches I: ...............28..
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (iel trees. severe erosion. F1 Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on hack

Facility Num her: p-141 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plant?
(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?
tN aste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ )excessive Pondmg ® PAN
Printed on 3/20/2000
3/29199
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
® Yes
❑ No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
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?
RyQL1ired Rccord: & &Daum nts
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
19. Does the facility bail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WLTP. checklists. design, maps. etc.)
19. Does record Keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation. freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit'?
(ie/ discharge. freeboard problems. over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further
correspondence about this visit.
❑ 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 IX No
® Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
* Recommend signing up for Neusc Rule options by 8/1/99 with the Greene Soil & Water Conservation District A.
* Given Integrator Registration card
* Waste sample dated 3/12/99 at 2.1 Ibs11000 gal. Soils report dated 2/8/99 - lime applied --2 weeks ago
8. Drainageway converted to grassed waterway on tract 1085 between fields 3 & 4. Work completed 3/27/99 - needs to be seeded and
stabilized. In process of cleaning out perimeter ditch around lagoon. Need to stabilize outlets of storm water drainageway/diversion
between houses & lagoon; contact technical specialist for help to shape low spots to enhance drainage_
11. For small grain oveiseed on tract 1085. field 3 with PAN at 1001bs/acre - over applied by 40.4 lbs for a total of 140.4 lbs/acre.
Will be referred to DWQ. All other fields are okay.
ReviewerfInspector Name pat Hooper 252/946-6481 Martin McLawhorn Patrick Fussell
1RPvtPw&r11nenPrtnr Cirrnaherw n,,#,.•

Printed on 3I2012000
Facility Number: 40-141 Date of inspection 3129199
Od;)r Is.ucs
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below ❑ Yes ❑ 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 ❑ No
28. Is there anv evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation. asphalt, ❑ Yes ❑ No
roads, building structure_ and/or public property)
29_ Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fau(s) noted? (i_e. broken fan belts. missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenthemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14b. Brock Irrigation will be makine wettable acre determination within 60 days. Operation unable to pass 75% rule and is subject to
wettable acre determination. Operation has access to honey wagon. Waste plan will need to be amended based on wettable acres.
15. Sprayftelds treated with 24D with Coastal Bermuda resprigged around March 15.
19. Need to separate 1RR2 records according to crop with small grain overseed at 100 lbs/acre and Coastal Bermuda (depending on soil
type) at either 190 or 235 lbs/acre PAN
* Certificate of Coverage on site as previously requested
25. Tract 1085. fields 12, 13 & 14 are listed in operation's waste plan AND in the plan for facility 40-007. These fields can only be
listed once in one certified waste plan. Until discrepancy is corrected. the certified waste plans for both operations are noncompliant
with current regulations.
A,
I+

uivlsion ui Joii anal water t-onseryation - uperation neview
p Division of Soil and. Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection
p Division of Water Quality - Compliance Inspection
p Other Agency:- Operation Review.
10 Koutine 0 Complaint 0 Pollow-up of UWQ inspection 0 hollow -up of USWC review 0 Other I
Facility Number I)ate of Inspection
l ionc of, I1151wetirui ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
o Registered N Certified t3 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted In Not 0perationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: E,H,.IDixon.Swine.Facm.# Z..................................................................... County: Greene WARO
OwnerName: E.N.......................................... ffixon .......................................................... Phone No: 919-74.7-.SS5S........................ ........................ ..........
Facility Contact: Henry..loridan.... .......... .................... -............. Title: Manager ............................................ Phone No: 252LT.4.7..5447........ ...............
MailingAddress: P.O.Box.Q................................................................................................. Maury .. NC ... ; ......................................................... 2855.4 ..............
Onsite Representative: Heurylardan............................................................................ Integrator:.Conlinental.GtAia ...............................................
Certified Operator: Hetxry.M,Henxy.M ............................. lo:r iatl.............................................. Operator Certification Number: l&505.................... :........
Location of Farm:
ae. rats_ ury. o. zzte* a t_on...............................................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
Latitude ©. ®6 ©11 Longitude ©. ®° ©11
Design urren
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to can
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
p Boars
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer 13 Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ on- airy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 7,680
Total SSLW 1 1.036.800
Number of Lagoons /Holding Ponds 1
10
Subsurface
Drains
Present
p
agoon Area
13 Spray to rea
p
No
Liquid Waste
Management
System
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
maintenance/improvement?
b. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes p No
p Yes ❑ Na
[]Yes ❑ No
p Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
p Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No

e
Facility Number: 40_141 1)"ItV cat' Inspection
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (La?,00ns,Holding Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I
Identifier : ...............#.1........
Freeboard (ft): 1.6
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
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
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(if in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
p Yes ® No
p Yes H No
Structure 5 Structurc 6
15. Crop type Coastal.Rcr=da.(.gzazc.)..... ......... Small-grain.overseed........ •--........... -..............................................
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?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Onlv
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
:o.vo tohs-&e erclsiltres_wei-?-&Jte -:rr.frgtthisvisit.'- oi-W teciverii t-ter-
............. .,.. ii. _ . :
:rorrespomdefi&ab,66t Ns• it;: .. .
...................
............................I ............................
.
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
................... ........
Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
N Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ENO
p Yes ®No
® Yes p No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
Comments (refer to question#). Explaht any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better es plain_situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
9. Lagoon at 19 inches - need to land apply as soil and weather conditions permit and in accordance with waste plan.
18. Field was cut & baled once; weed growth heavy w/ Coastal Bermuda nonexistent in portions of field; may have to re -sprig next
spring. Mr. Jordan planning to implement weed control (chemicals) next spring - field was sprayed in August 1998. Rye drilled in
last week. Recommend contacting NCDA Agronomist Bob Edwards at 252/523-2949 for assistance on maintaining forage.
2. Need to record weekly freeboard levels as required by General Permit. Need copy of Certificate of Coverage (this is the letter
at came with the General Permit Performance Standards which is on site. Late waste sample - last taken January 1998 with
applications from .tune through September; need to pull immediately. Mr. Jordan has been rehired and in process of updating
records, etc. He has IRRI information and needs to transfer to IRR2 for nitrogen balancing. Recommend securing irrigation
operating parameters but not required since farm was certified prior to 9/1196. No soil sample reports on site - pulled last week.

Facility Number: 40_141