470001_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental Qual

j� I �f g 9-�- i� __ F7 1�_b
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
470001
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS470001
Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County:
Hoke Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
11/03/2017 EntryTime: 11:00 am Exit Time: 11:40 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Hog's Breath Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Swine Relief LLC
Phone:
910-862-4549
Mailing Address:
PO Box 535
Elizabethtown NC 283370535
Physical Address:
1224 Dave Currie Rd
Red Springs NC 28377
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34° 52' 17" Longitude:
79' 18' 10"
On east side of SR 1118 approx. 0.5 miles north
of SR 1117. Jordan Swamp.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
. Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
r 1
Certified Operator: T avis Rya 13�r Operator Certification Number: Q�t)
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Kathy Barker Phone
On -site representative Kathy Barker Phone
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Bill Dunlap
Inspection Summary:
Calibration Sept 2015, Sludge Survey March 2017, 0-3.5, P-3,6 50%
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

f
'
Permit: AWS470001
Owner - Facility : Swine Relief LLC
f
Facility. Number:
470001.
Inspection Date: 11/03/17
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish
8,800
6,800
Total Design Capacity:
8,800
Total SSLW 1,188,000.
Waste Structures
Disignated
Observed
Type Identifier
Closed Date Start Date
Freeboard
Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
44.00
page: 2

1
Permit: AWS470001 Owner - Facility : Swine Relief LLC Facility Number: 470001
Inspection Date: 11/03/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
charges & Stream Imoac
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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)
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Na
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
8. 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 ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ E ❑ ❑
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 > 10%/10 Ibs,?
❑
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

-�a
Permit: AWS470001 Owner- Facility:, Swine Relief LLC Facility Number. 470001
Inspection Date: 11/03/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na Ne'
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Coastal Bermuda Grass w/
Rye Omseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
Rainfall?
Candor
❑■❑❑
❑ N ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No Na Ne
❑■❑❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS470001 Owner - Facility : Swine Relief LLC Facility Number. 470001
Inspection Date: 11/03/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection! Reason for Visit: Routine
ords and Docume
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?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
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?
❑
01113
25, Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑ ❑
appropriate box(es) below,
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ❑
01haE 1psges
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates? ,
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
01111
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
❑
❑
page: 5

■ Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number: 470001 Facility Status: Active permit; AWS470001 ❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type; Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Date of Visit:
03/11/2015 Entry Time: 09:00 am
Farm Name:
Hogs Breath Inc 1 Farm 5077
Owner;
Murphy -Brown LLC
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Physical Address:
1224 Dave Currie Rd
Facility Status:
■ 0,,..,...11, 4 n KI-6 t'--- 1,-
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Hoke Region: Fayetteville
Exit Time: 9:30 am Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone: [phone]
Warsaw NC 28398
Red Springs NC 28377
Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3452' 17" Longitude: 79° 18' 10"
On east side of SR 1118 approx. 0.5 miles north of SR 1117. Jordan Swamp.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator;
Ronald Lee Matthews
Operator Certification Number: 990008
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Reprosentative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone:
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone:
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS470001 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number, 470001
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 8,800
Total Design Capacity: 8,800
Total SSLW: 1,188,000
Waste Structures
Dislgnated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 37.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS470001 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470001
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharaes & Stream Impacts
Yea
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
01311
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ ■
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ m
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
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
Yea No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
O ❑
❑
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
❑.
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yea 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?
❑
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: 3

Permit:
AWS470001
Owner -Facility:
Murphy -Brown LLC
facility Number,
470001
Inspection Date:
03/11/15
1npsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Gress
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
5matt Grain Oversaad
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Candor sand, 1 to 8%
slopes
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑ moo
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
page: 4

Permit, AWS470001 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
470001
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yea
No Ne No
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
e ❑
❑
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
[a
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yee No No No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑M
❑
❑
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,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
MIJEI
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the 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
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
470001
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS470001
Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County:
Hoke Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/20/2014 Entry Time: 12:00 pm Exit Time: 1:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Hog's Breath Inc I Farm 5077
Owner Emall:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
1224 Dave Currie Rd
Red Springs NC 28377
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34' 52' 17" Longitude:
79° 18' 10"
On east side of SR 1118 approx. 0.5 miles north of SR 1117. Jordan Swamp,
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Sior, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator:
Michael L Cudd
Operator Certification Number: 25233
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone
On -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 3/10114.
Site visit 3/20114,
page: 1

Permit: AWS470001 Owner -. Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470001
Inspection Date: 03/20/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity - Current promotions
Swine
�] Swine - Feeder to Finish
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste StruclUres
Dlaignata' Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS470001 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brawn LLC Facility Number: 470001
Inspection Date: 03/20/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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)
❑
❑ 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)
❑
110
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑01111
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
No
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
El
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No No Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
[]
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS470001 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470001
Inspection Date: 03/20/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Y21 No No Ne
Crop Type 1
4 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hey)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Candor sand, 1 to 9%
slopes
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
N ❑
❑
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?
❑
N ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
013
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
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?
❑ E ❑ ❑
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?
❑
page: 4
r

Permit: AWS470001 Owner - Facility ; Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
470001
Inspection Date: 03/20/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields? I
❑
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
❑
■ ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
M ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
[]
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No No 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 the 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
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
00
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 470001 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS470001
Denied Access
Inpeection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit: Routine County:
Hoke Region:
Fayetteville
Date of visit: 0212712013 Entry Time: 09:30 am Exit Time: 10:00 am Incident #
Farm Name: Hog's Breath Inc / Farm 5077
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 1224 Dave Currie Rd
Red Springs NC 28377
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude:
34' 52' 17" Longitude:
79° 18' 10"
On east side of SR 1118 approx. 0.5 miles north of SR 1117. Jordan Swamp.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Cal, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
S Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Ronald Lee Matthews
Operator Certification Number:
990008
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd
Phone:
On -site representative Mike Cudd
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 2/14/13
Site visit 2/27113
page: 1

Permit: AWS470001 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470001
Inspection Date: 02/27/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for \Asit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 8,800
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste %ru2tures
Dielgnated Observed
Type identifier Closed Data Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
I
page: 2

Permit: AWS470001 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470001
Inspection Date: 02/27/13 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharnes & Stream Impacts
Yes
No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 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)
❑
❑ 0
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No No No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
Ygs No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑.
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS470001 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470001
Inspection Date: 02/27/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes_ No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Oversead
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Candor
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?
EIN
❑
❑
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?
❑
013
❑
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS470001 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 470001
Inspection Date: 02/27/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yoe _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?
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If 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?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or,air quality concern? If yes,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑0
❑
❑
(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
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWM P?
33, Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Quality
Lacffity.Number O Division of Sail and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance I
Reason for Vlslt ©Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: [M.'000h.,j Departure Time: !oo County:
Farm Name: Owner Email:
,,�/
Owner Name: I r ` —6wwln Phone: _
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region:
Facility Contact: I' t t ne— L'u-M Title: [ l ,�/� Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: Wo
L}i� - 1�Q wh UL
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 e = ' ❑ Longitude: 0 ° = , ❑ 1f
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Pou Its
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures: 01
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 the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [RNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
QRNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[NNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[INo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

acllity Number: — Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
W Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
;9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
i�
Observed Freeboard (in): 33
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(iel large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement'?
❑ Yes
[� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(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
❑ Yes
LP No ElNA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
(N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
29 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Cl Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
eco,mm�ye�ngtl d gns or any oth r comets.
9
Comm�yents (r`e'fer `to q stion #)� xExxptlaln*n iy Ys S answers ndlo5pagesas
Use drawings off ll^ ha etter ex Main situations (use �dditivnanecessary): V
Si� JiS:�— CaKdkc� 3�n/tl,
Reviewer/Inspector Name' -
W - Phone: —Y2 -3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 2�25//1
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection u ((
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WDP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
59 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit'?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance ofthe permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
J�J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern'?
❑ Yes
[Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
E� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings.
Page 3 of 3 12128104

• Division of Water Quality
Facility Number - L1J 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of visit: 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
iieason for Visit: ® Routine 0 Complaint Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: � Departure Time: 10'.cv County:
Farm Name: 50 15. YrcA Owner Email:
Owner Name: MLA-9--Ipv" �{/pt�,� LJjC' Phone:
Mailing Address:
Region:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: i Ke� Title: Phone:
1�
Onsite Representative: Integrator: rocu o U
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Other
Other
J
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the 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 the 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 the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes �g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes
No
NA
❑NE
❑ Yes
[] No
NA
❑ NE
[:]Yes [:)No
❑ Yes No
[:]Yes ® No
6Z NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili ' Number: - I Date of Inspection,:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No \M NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �f
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., iarge trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(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 ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 ibs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
171No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
UhNo
Lfftr
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
7�
❑ WUP ❑Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps ❑ Leasc Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes F No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes � No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes F No
❑NA ONE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - I I jDate of Ins ecdon: a
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes fA No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ® No
the appropriate box(es) below. T
❑ 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? ❑ Yes allo
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [] Yes ❑ No
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
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 the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
3 I. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
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 an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[]Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[�3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
V] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facilit to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
e_C0(4 s P-('-J; C--�e-L *`(((3
i e_ J i s
t - a /a 7//3
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature
Page 3 of 3
Phone: q l o LB 3 3 3 oo
Date:
21412011

(Type of Visit: 0 Compliance Inspection U Operation Review p Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: IT[ (Z I Arrival Time: i� Departure Time: �4 County:
�
Farm Name: �6 rr� r[ —3r�ms` Qq,,Q Owner Email:
Owner Name: M.A1A rDL4)V%,, LkC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Region: FO
Facility Contact: Mry Yam. " Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: j62:2 t " u.(
Certified Operator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
EMW Design C*urrent
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wet Poultry
Design Current
Capacity Pop:
I
Design Current
Cattle KIMP.
airy Cow
Wean to Feeder
I
jNon-Layer
airy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Non-Dairy
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Other
Other
Turkeys
Turkey Pouets
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the 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 the 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 the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] No
[' NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes � No
❑ Yes WNo
NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Ins ection: 2
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [?DNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �T
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
3 rr
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(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 ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste_ Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need [] Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? r
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus [] Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ ence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes JR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall [] Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 ° Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate'waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes E0
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ZNA
T
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
Cr No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any: YES answers'and/orAny additional recommendations or,any other�commenta,gf �t: s
Use: drawings;nf facility to`better: explain situations '(use additional pages'as necessary).. ;
e,a rw it U4 311 b
Sty ✓10- 360(t.
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: �%�d3- 3300
Date: 3 -L-
21412011

ArOfS ZI - ( 7---20/0
ivision of Water Quality
Facility Number 7 �__D O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit
ompliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
outine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Dented Access
Date of Visit: 3 Z6`/D Arrival Time: Departure Time: C
Farm Name: 5-6-7-7-3 old Nowc. llzq S 13i-cc4-&
Owner Name: gr5pjAj LGG
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
County: 0 JAL Region: Cad
Owner Email:
Phone:
Title: '� Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: ,4"f''RI"
Certified Operator: MV.&� � AA G L,a N Operator Certification Number: 996752-
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
A4,14_ Cu ld
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
�❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish 6800
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other A
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: [= o = 6 a Longitude: = ° = 6 = {1
Design Current Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy CaIf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures: �J
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the 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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 8 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
2 fA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
9 NA
❑ NE
[9NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
LkNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Zj No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12178104 Continued

rj
Facility Number: 47 —Q 0 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:. .�o77 =3
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ic/ large 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?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes [ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 7 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes JE"JIINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(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 ❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop types) (14a l (01J r5eej, )
13. Soil type(s) COL" d 0 V-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
ff No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
El Yes
km No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
E5No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #):.,Explain any YE&answeri and/oar any, recommendations br any other., comments,
Use dra'wingsof facility tobetterexplain situations ;(use,additional page® as necessary) ;
r
Reviewer/inspector Name i�-S �33. 33 DC�
s l$=< ]?hone: 9/0AO
t' r - •
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: —0 %— ZOO
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

. Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes PYNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22,
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
j] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
.,9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
fO No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
BNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
LONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
,� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31,
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additin'nal Cnntments and/nr Driiwitigs r r a : ' 4 ,� �.,e, * °, . ' .a L d f i ,., a` � '. ` :y ,
� ti
; �
�i'.....IVA
° 1
Page 3 of 3 12128104

V
E
f Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
n for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access_TEE(")
Date of Visit: D Arrival Time: eparture Time: County: �� Region: 5Farm Name: D 7 f 3 r `� �Ownner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: tT¢:3Ihlea 06.) Title: Phone No: !!�
Onsite Representative: V1 Integrator: &4[.t G
Certified Operator; C g.ln_ „,,,_, Operator Certification Number:
�/�
Back-up Operator: /'' � � � 7'7� h'!D�'` S � Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 0 ' = Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Design Current
Swine C►opacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer
I
ow
❑ Wean to Feeder I
I I JE1 Non -Layer
I
I❑
17air Calf
Feeder to Finish
❑Dai Heifer
El Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
it e 010 Turkey Poults
❑ Other 1 10 Other
Number of Structures:
ME
�wiiiiiiiiiiii
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the 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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge'?
Page I of 3
El Yes PNo [I NA El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
PNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[NA
El NE
VNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
5�4o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
VpNo
NA
[I NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
,❑l
TUNA
❑ NE
Stru ure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Structure 5
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
\
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
�3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑Yes �] No El NA El NE
(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 ❑ Yes R No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes Z] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
1.1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) �/1'frG.1
13.
Soil type(s) CAJD6f_-
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
'[!o No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
f� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
q9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
IF No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question#): Explain any YES answers and/or any:recommendations or any. other comments.,4 `
1
UseFdrawings of facility to better explain situations.(use additional pages as necessary):;.
Reviewer/Inspector Name I j Phone: qt0-J433A 300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: NA Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes #No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[ftNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
RNA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
1] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
3NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
$ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
�No
ElNA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
;9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
EDNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3__ 12128104

40 Division of Water Quality
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: I 't / /dr/'ice Arrival Time: Departure Time: 3 %u� �'^ County: Region:
Farm Name: mSb7 S ) Owner Email:
Owner Name: , frtw'O" !ld 14 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ► "+ 34tt 21,4 0,1S Title:
Onsite Representative: It
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator: A UI.>0 1 &2211
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: 0 0 = 6 Longitude: = ° 0 , =
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharme5 & Stream Impacts
I, is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the 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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes- 15 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes Jallo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes �No El NA
El NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 18
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes $ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No [-NA ❑ NE
Stru. ture1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 3
Spillway?;
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): N
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes No ElNA [INE
through a waste management or closure plan? IU
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 51 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(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 []Yes EgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ElApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ep-., ,a" ), 54, , "n oo-ee-cwJ .._
13.
Soil type(s) ��
--
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
93 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
OS No
❑ NA
❑ NE
ReviewerAnspector Name Phone: 0 333W
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: / iJ
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

1
Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1�3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 55 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
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?
Y
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
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 the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. 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
3 I. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
to No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
toNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
ONo
El NA
[I NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
El Yes
®No
El NA
El NE
❑ Yes
�9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Wts 3113J .4 -) V S
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Z'13-D} Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Ke- Region: F—ko
Farm Name: Npa brtaAArx Owner Email:
Owner Name: +, 3� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: �7
Facility Contact: 0.Nd in Q y+^ft-a CIv-Ne*� Title: $44 v . Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: 014 grOWA/
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = e = I = 11 Longitude: 0 ° = ` = "
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Population
Design Current Design Current
Wet Poultry C►apacity Population Cattle C►apacity Population
❑ Wean -to Finish
❑ La er
❑ DairyCow
❑
Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
❑ Dai Calf
50 Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
3
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
El Boars
Other
$$O0
❑ DairyHeifer
Dry Poultry ❑ D Cow
Non -Dairy
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets El Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the 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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes [;gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
R] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
P� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 97 - Q Date of Inspection x- ~d-t
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): Zao �}
Observed Freeboard (in): Z4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [Y No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(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 ❑ Yes [� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE
maintenance/improvement? LP
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ FAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) J5eV-w&kA_ci 0_ Ot.,, _ SmAcj/ G pa.i n/ (� • S
13. Soil type(s) ca0.
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
D6 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
`Comments (refer to question#):. Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
,,;Use diawIngs of facility.to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Name t` J Rom/ S Fhone:/t7, SL33. 3334
ReviewerlInspector Signature: Date: Z -/3
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ,� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [I Maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Cade
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
U9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[3 No
❑ NA
[I NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[l Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
JgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or. Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Uj William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
> North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
p Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
December 1, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
a.
Wade S Dunbar ti 1 a
Hog's Breath Inc
PO Box 568
Laurinburg, NC 28353
Subject: Application for Renewal of Coverage for Expiring NPDES General Permit
Dear Permittee:
Your facility is currently approved for operation under one of the Animal Waste Operation NPDES General Permits, which expire on
July 1, 2007. Due to changes in federal rules, facilities that do not discharge nor propose to discharge may choose whether or not to
retain coverage under an NPDES General Permit. Copies of the draft animal waste operation NPDES general permits and the State
Non -Discharge General Permits are available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.uslaps/afou/downioads,htrn or by writing or calling:
NCDENR — DWQ Animal Feeding Operations Unit
1636 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1636
Telephone number: [phone]
In order to assure your continued coverage under one of these two types of general permits, you must submit an application for permit
coverage to the Division. Enclosed you will find a `Request for Certificate of Coverage Facility Currently Covered b, a� n Expiring
NPDES General Permit.' The avolication form must be completed and returned by 3anuary 2 2007. Please noteyou must include
two (2)copies of Your most recent WasteUtilizationPlan with the application form.
Failure to request renewal of your coverage under a general permit within the time period specified may result in a civil penalty.
Operation of your facility without coverage under a valid general permit would constitute a violation ofNCGS 143-215.1 and could
result in assessments of civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day.
If you have any questions about the draft general permits, the enclosed application, or any related matter please feel free to contact the
Animal Feeding Operations Unit staff at 919-733-3221.
Sincerely,
Ted L. Bush, Jr., Chief
Aquifer Protection Section
Enclosures
cc (w/o enclosures): Hoke County Soil and Water Conservation District
Fayetteville Regional Office, Aquifer Protection Section
AFO Unit Central Files - 470001
Carroll's Foods Inc
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Internet: www.ncwaterqualitv.org Location: 2728 Capital Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27604
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Posl Consumer Paper
Telephone:
Fax 1:
Fax 2:
Customer Service:
N-ort Carolina
(919),1�?tatura!!�
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]

W A 7- iQ Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr,. Secretary
r- Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
September 1, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
MR. WADE DUNBAR
HOG'S BREATH INC FARM
PO Box 568
LAURINBURG, NC 28353
RrECEI ED
ru _..-
OENB-FA0T 'LLEREGIONALOFRGE
Subject: Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool
Hog's Breath Inc Farm
Permit Number NCA247001
Facility 47-1
Hoke County
Dear Mr. Dunbar:
The Division's records show that a completed PLAT Form has NOT been submitted for this facility. If
our records are in error please resubmit the completed PLAT Form for this farm.
There is a condition in your Animal Waste Management General NPDES Permit addressing the
completion of the Phosphorous Loss Assessment Tool for your animal feeding operation upon
notification by the Division of Water Quality (Division).
Your NPDES Permit Number NCA247001 Condition I,6 states:
"If prior to the expiration date of this permit either the state or federal government
establishes Phosphorus loss standards that are applicable to land application activities at a
facility operating under this permit, the Permittee must conduct an evaluation of the facility
and its CAWMP under the requirements of the Phosphorus loss standards to determine the.
facility's ability to comply with the standards. This evaluation must be documented on
forms supplied or approved by the Division and must be submitted to the Division. This
evaluation must be completed by existing facilities within six (6) months of receiving
notification from the Division.
The method of evaluation is the Phosphorous Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT) developed by NC State
University and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. PLAT addresses four potential loss
pathways: leaching, erosion, runoff and direct movement of waste over the surface. Each field must be
individually evaluated and rated as either low, medium, high or very high according to its Phosphorus
loss potential. The ratings for your farm must be reported to DWQ using the attached certification form.
The PLAT forms must be kept as records on your farm for future reference.
The Division's records show that you received the notification to conduct PLAT on January 8, 2004. To
avoid possible enforcement action for a violation of your permit, The Division of Water Quality requests
that the following items be addressed:
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1636
Internet: www.newaterquality.org Location: 2728 Capital Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone:
Fax 1:
Fax 2:
Customer Service:
Nene
i Carolina
Ataru!!U
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]

1. Submit justification for not responding within 180 days of receipt of the PLAT notification
letter.
2. Consult with your technical specialist and submit a written schedule for completing the PLAT
evaluation.
Failure to comply with the above conditions may result in a civil penalty assessment for the facility.
Please be advised that this notice does not prevent the Division of Water Quality from taking enforcement
actions for any past or future violation. Furthermore, the Division of Water Quality has the authority to
levy a civil penalty of not more than $25,000.00 per day per violation.
Please provide this office with a written response on or before September 30, 2006.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me by email at
[e-mail] or.by phone at [phone] or you may contact the Fayetteville Regional
Office at [phone]. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Duane Leith
Animal Feeding Operations Unit
cc: la`yetteville3Regional-Office-;
Facility File 47-1

M
cj
® Division of Water Quultty
Facility Number / O Division of Sail and Water Conservation
�Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit. %-Q II - Arrival Time: / ; Departure Time: .' County: �1[e Region -
Farm
Farm Name: w'5 _�6 .cab --"- 70 % -73 Owner Email:
Owner Name: N U L"D c. gdww /j Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: I Title:
Onsite Representative: d5
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: 9bh W n/
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
FP- 0
Latitude: = o = 6 =if Longitude: = ° 0 , = `,
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity PopWation Wet Poultry C+apacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish 110 Layer ❑Dai Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder I 11--l-Non-Layer
1.
1
Dair Calf
Feeder to Finish ❑ DaiEy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Dr.y Poultry ❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder ElNon-Dairy
El Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑Gilts ❑ Non -Layers
El Beef Feeder
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars❑ Beef Brood Cow
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
1110 Other ❑ Other Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the 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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
❑ Yes IM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes
JMNo
❑NA
ONE
El Yes
No
❑NA
❑NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Q
Date of Inspection -b
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
r
Observed Freeboard (in): 3 4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large 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?
❑ Yes QRNo
❑ Yes � No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes [)I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes M No ElNA ❑ NE
(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 ❑ Yes (M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11.
Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
Wo ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drill [I Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop types} /7�.v reG'y s/yral� t9 AklvtJ
T —T
13.
Soil type(s) R j
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes
V No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
J91 No ❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
® No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YESlanswers and/orany recommendations or any other,comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
AL
Reviewer/Inspector Name rZ e.t/ s I Phone: m
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

In
4 Facility Number: 7— Date of Inspection
Reaulred Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes R1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ,1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
,® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
(UNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
,® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
nal Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time, Departure Time: County: 01< Region: FR-0
Farm Name: I��A S &_eo'41 7077 Owner Email:
Owner Name: f1d S414P n yo w N Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: Ro�+J ILL%__ _ Gum gae±/
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
I " Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
❑ Other
�o
Latitude:
Phone No:
Integrator: Aliti'g Bwbt,/A/
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
FEEILaer
Non -La ct
Dry Poultry
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other ...�
Discharees & Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Longitude; =
0
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dai_ry Heifer
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number of Structures:
b. Did the 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 adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 5d No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
XNo
❑ Yes
D9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
U No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number:"] — p f Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes CKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): -2.0.* Y y
Observed Freeboard (in): ZAZ
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(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 ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes D9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? ,,++bb,,
1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. []Yes JX No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l 0% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Dritl ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) R evuw u A e,`. 1-�a �. 5`t4 a !/ Gkrk
13. Soil type(s) C'7�- S
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination%❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
;0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewerllnspector Name Phone: (9/D�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Z2—Q5
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: V7-0/ Date of Inspection //-Z9-D
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? [--]Yes [(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes. ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 5d No [I NA ❑ NE
[I Waste Application El Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 12 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
CR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NL
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional;Comments and/or Drawings:
12128104

kNo,r %'i4i t�k
° � � Dlvisioin of Water Qus�lity � � +� i u
0. q iwoh of Soil'aad Water CouservatiOtt
lei � '' ,A gene
'
`al f u Q Oilier
r lli ( Yho +, r 4 ; t�t€� ° i� ft{ E #+ #
._ _ ,.•E< i�:f ,... .a >: "..,-, ,.,. 5,3. saP> ..�c s._„�_,- I. ,..�,i.. �e,.. ._�..i.�.L'.mi.:rl rPl Z„"e,i .�,d 4a.,� °tEE€�'sl it; �z`,r...diS, IIt.,,-ns=
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit AbRoutine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number irate [AVisit: �Time: 115 57
N t O e to al J213elow Threshold
Permitted 0 Certified nn U Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated orr Above Threshold:
Farm Name: Uk�h Y S. County: //�/ e
Owner Name: l [o Z .1k e . 1 Phone No: i/ 4d 0-
Mailing Address: —ra 8'K S- 3 1. a-N.R;
Facility Cont} ct: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine []Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 0u Longitude ' 0• l� w
Design
Design + ;'.' EE„`, Design ; Currenfy
!"
Swine Capacity
Poalai on . ' Poultry Ca 'achy •pCurrent
a idati6n iCattle y �.; I.. Ca' achy °!PA ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
y€ ❑ Layer I '{ ji ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
.
; `' Non La er IE ` ❑ Nan Dai
' ❑ Farrow to Wean
}I
', E ! <�'.� I-S 1, "`�4 i !l; ...E v I# # [E ail, ! ai7a� �+ €1 1 I�j ej �, § �P ill it
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
0
, Total Design Capacity -;� €
❑ Gilts
t :� Ir I€
❑ Boars
f'rVtilif l is
i'.I �I. �' k .��8 3 - I E y;aj33 j i1-4: 3k d LWgi€ E#:
fl9! ;
j ll
Number 'of,Lagoons
❑ Subsurface Drains Present_JIEI Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area 'I'
Holdlng Ponds Traps
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System ; € ��,;' �,,,,`` Es�°sl
..Soid
. ,� ,� ! ,�I•�i �
Discharges & Stream hmp cts ,,.,,��,,���
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ElM
Yes <0-
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man -trade? ❑ 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 & I[eatMCUt
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:
Ir
Freeboard (inches): / 9
05103101 Continued

FaZility Number: — / 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 ❑ Yes ❑ No
CI05UIe 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? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancerimprovement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ❑ No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance./improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. Is there evidence of over application? if yes, check the appropriate boa below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ 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
I6. 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.
i r� ter, am' wq:t3 rrr ;p epee • ae*.r ttt ow ^r ter t3 ar u� m 3 K r r q� ro m ivnEr2 ;::k,:. z�
PCommmts referitojquist ofi#) E.irplstia atey Y& apswers ar aayarecamnsaadatfaris ar wty�a Tier commeats: i . ' ' '
�( �.�
[lse dravvin Qf�facili to fetter lainui nse�addinal� asg SS gr h` �P �, p�� aiY) � ❑ I~<eid COPY ❑Final Noses
Reviewer/Inspector Name ' �; R . 11 gala ... �� . TMINFAW9.s; i `" t r u
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: P-
12112103 Continued

t
MINI
Type of Visit 411 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other © Denied Access
Faeilits_ Number Date of Visit: 0 Time: '
Not Operational Q Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: County:
Owner Name: _ (16 CIE, 121"& C.- / iAA arL
I� Phone No: 6 4A&
Mailing Address: 0_8 __ �g _ — _ aeis _3
Ffleilit%' Contact: ! h01MC�S Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: K'�--6'-n.it IL-T Integrator:---C&rI,?,"
r
Certified Operator: !!A rn�.-S �,� -.k Le_(" Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
00 swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 6 " Longitude • �OK
Design Current
Swine ranarav Pnmasitinn
Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish
0
i+
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca achy Population Cattle Ca acity Po ulation
❑ Layer I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ La oon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / SoUd Traps V . =' ❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges S Stream ImRacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lat?oon ❑ 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 [X No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 91 No
ff_= Collgetion & TreatMent
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 5allo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): a.15
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: Alt- I
Date of Inspection aga
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity oi'any of the structures observed? (ic/ 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 4-5 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
❑ Yes [0 No
❑ Yes [Z 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 ® No
Wiasity-App ication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No
12. Crop type S e -4- s1M i &,rr„ Z" a , S . ..
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 P No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Reuuired 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?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
[I�7jN Yes
�:o
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ 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
(ZNo
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?
❑ Yes
® No
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspeclor 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
0 No
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
. f>r1L � � e - "E.a
Comments (refer to ilu4stiori 4) Explain any YE9 Answers and/or anyrecomfii4Wilon" nr my other comments.
Ugedraingstof iacllity to better sltuatlons` (use asjnecessary).
`..r.
explain acliiltlanal pages Field Col
Copy ❑Final Notes k
y R ,
Alk
Reviewer/inspector Name
Reviewerllnspector Signature: Date: O
05103101 L. Continued

, i Y
Facility Number: / Date of inspection 0
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
24. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e, broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes L No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
�Atiiiitibnal�Cnr►Tmenty�a"niilor;�Drawingai .�.;.; r, ;;„�;; '�,, �r�,„� �,i.,� � :�,,,
i
05103101

%-Q o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Andrew McCall, Regional Manager
A 37 �qc. wo,
*7 -O 1
ova
[D FE F1
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 19, 1995
Mr. Wade Dunbar
Hog's Breath Farm
P. 0. Box 3621
Laurinburg, NC 28353
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Hog' s Breath Farm � Zuc .
Hoke County
Dear Mr. Dunbar:
On July 14, 1995, and inspection of your animal operation was
performed by the Fayetteville Regional Office (FRO). Please find
enclosed a copy of our Compliance Inspection Report for your
information. It is the opinion of this office that this facility
is in compliance with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217, and that Animal
Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any question regarding this matter, feel free
to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ricky Revels. -
Environmental Technician IV
RR/sc
Enclosure
CC: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone 910-48&1541 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
Hog's Breath Farm/Wade S. Dunbar July 14, 1995 �.�, Q Mark M. Murphy
P. O. Box 3621 I 910 369-2861
Laurinburg, NC 28353
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
SECTION I
Animal O eration e:
Horses, cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep
SECTION II
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? [Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal Operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN?
5.. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (Volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
ee
�1■
OEM
OEM
0��

RXCTION III
Field Site Management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Map
Blue Line Stream?
3. Does this facility have adequate acreage
on which to apply the waste?
4. Does the land application site have a
cover crop in accordance with the
CERTIFICATION PLAN?
S. Is animal waste discharged into waters of
the state by man-made ditch, flushing system,
or other similar man-made devices?
6. Does the animal waste management at this
farm adhere to Best Management Practices
(BMP) of the approved CERTIFICATION?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient
freeboard? How much? (Approximately 9 ft plus)
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments