780033_ENFORCEMENT_20171231

NUH I H UAHULINA
Department of Environmental dual

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
May 25, 1999 -
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY
Sandy Evans 1-18 Farm
Facility No. 78-33
Robeson County
Mr. Sandy Evans
1305 Marietta Rd.
Fairmont, NC 28340
Dear Mr. Evans:
On May 20, 1999, staff from the Fayetteville Regional Office of the
Division of Water Quality conducted an inspection of the Sandy Evans 1-18
Farm in Robeson County. The inspection revealed that lagoon number two
had ten inches of freeboard per the lagoon marker. However, after shooting
the level with a transit, it was determined that the level was actually sixteen
inches at the time of the inspection. This is still less than the required
freeboard of nineteen inches and was not reported to the Fayetteville Regional
Office as required by the General Permit issued to this farm
Condition III, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, number 6.e.,
states that, "The Permittee shall report by telephone to the appropriate
Regional Office as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours
following first knowledge of the occurrence of any of the following events:
(e.) Failure to maintain storage capacity in a lagoon/storage pond greater than
or equal to that required in Condition V(3) of this General Permit.
"�f' $ In regard to the deficiency(s) noted during the inspection, the
--• - following actions are requested:
1 _ Lower the level of the lagoon to the required nineteen inches per your
CAWMP.
2. Set the lagoon marker to reflect the low point in the dam to accurately
record the freeboard level of the lagoon.
q�' w
-, 225 GREEN STREET, SUITE 714 FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28301-5043
�_.,!`^}� _�,--•''::.. -'>. _ .�� PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Mr. Evans
5-25-99
Page 2
Please provide a written response to this office on or before June 11, 1999 as to the
actions taken or proposed to be taken to resolve this deficiency. Nothing in this letter should be
taken as absolving this facility of the responsibility and liability of any violations that have resulted
or may result from this deficiency.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact me at the Fayetteville
Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
g+/
rC.ohn Hasty, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
cc: Sonya Avant -Compliance Group
Audrey Oxendine-DSWC Fayetteville Office
Ed Holland -Robeson Co. MRCS
Central Files -Raleigh

w
I 2f]ED I Facility Number % ` Date of Inspection 15 r
Time of Inspection ®24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted © Certified Q Conditionally Certifiedf © Registered © Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: .... _..-------.....__..... County: .... .....��...5 _...-
`......._.._...........---. ---
1
G / q
Owner Name: ^" ` ' ^-�......... -r ................. .... Phone No: ................... Z .. tP l ...
Facility Contact: ............... .(. w. ►'+-V._.....-.-.-.
........ Title: ._._.......
-----
Phone No-
_.
Mailing Address: ..... 1 .0 .....1...'..!.Q. !.. 01 ..... ..... ....... ... ...... r4.C. �' ' !.0 �....... .l.. `�.-G.............. 7�
Onsite Representative: ............... (�tf �>�~ Integrator: Aes._L'... -
Certified Operator: ..... .................... ............... _ _ _ _ ....... Operator Certification Number: ........ _................ ....
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude 0 • ���
;Srvirie :. . - .-D_e"-sign Cu� rrent ..Cattle Dep sign.. Curr:e.:nDesign Current:Capacity Po ula
nCapacityPopulation Caacity Po ilabori;
;
Wean to Feeder
_Feeder to Finish 13 Z301
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Boars
❑Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer Non -Dairy
Other -
Ws Total Design Capacity z_'3 U
.... :-'Total SSLW
-::. _
Discha es & Stream Imp
i. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Docs discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure b
Identifier: )7-1 V
Freeboard(inches): ....... .., � ................... I fJ...............I........................... ....... I........................... ..... I ............. ...... ... .......
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)3/23/99 Continued on buck

Facility Number: % Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged marls) rs with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified ANVNW7
: Q YiQla igti}s:or- dt?> 10ompie5 worp noted 00609 OWvlslt; - Yoo :will- iye trio
rorresporic ence a�ouir this .visit. . • . .
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to�quest on #) ;Explain any YFS answers aiud/or airy recammendattons o� any other ccimments:� L�. - ` -p
-i? € 3 K '¢^ ..e F�`F� r�5�3�
Use drawlrig5 of facility t0 -b1' eirplaln situations #94 additional pages as necessary) -" } ;
•H.4.-+�'tic�%rr-11ii J-.-r'.;.s �rW ail.ii!.. x�'^,.�hi!
Note�_K e u e S��� •� d f f k e Q a� Afar1(Pr
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified ANVNW7
: Q YiQla igti}s:or- dt?> 10ompie5 worp noted 00609 OWvlslt; - Yoo :will- iye trio
rorresporic ence a�ouir this .visit. . • . .
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments (refer to�quest on #) ;Explain any YFS answers aiud/or airy recammendattons o� any other ccimments:� L�. - ` -p
-i? € 3 K '¢^ ..e F�`F� r�5�3�
Use drawlrig5 of facility t0 -b1' eirplaln situations #94 additional pages as necessary) -" } ;
•H.4.-+�'tic�%rr-11ii J-.-r'.;.s �rW ail.ii!.. x�'^,.�hi!
Note�_K e u e S��� •� d f f k e Q a� Afar1(Pr
r n � e G7717r ! n e
`�,% 4iwe
(A1a5�
de�'e trM�sled 10�f';A, I tivel a�
�� eL
�i+k
1 �a T e o w a� �4
r-
w ryla r ket'
. / G� e n 4- f I rickC s a s s se v ed e
� � 1Pt,�� �,y�as , D
-77 `�'�e �-ree�eard.
ow -!r- 10 -17 e I a 5- kc� �'��a S�r�c�� ra(
Reviewer/Inspector Name27
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
June 18, 2000
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Sandy Evans
1305 Marietta Road
Fairmont, NC 28340
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY
Sandy Evans 1-18 Swine Facility
Registration No. 78-33
Robeson County
Dear Mr. Evans:
On June 13, 2000, staff from the Fayetteville Regional Office of the
Division of Water Quality inspected the Sandy Evans swine facility. It was
observed that the CAWIVIP field numbers and the waste application field
records did not correspond resulting in confusion - In addition, the lagoon
freeboard records were not being maintained weekly in accordance with the
General Permit.
In regard to the deficiencies noted during the inspection, the following
actions are requested:
Begin immediately maintaining lagoon freeboard records weekly for
all lagoons in accordance with the General Permit .
2. Have your CAWMP rewritten to correspond with the the irrigation
design recently completed for the facility to include all fields.
Nothing in this letter should be taken as absolving this facility of the
responsibility and liability of any violations that have or may result front.
these deficiencies.
rs 7
•2 -0 1 0
225 GREEN STREET, SUITE 714 / SYST£L OLD. FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28301-5043
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Mr. Sandy Evans
Page 2
June 18, 2000
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call Robert Heath, at (910) 486-
1541.
Sincerely,
Robert F. Heath
Environmental Specialist
cc: Operations Branch
Central Files
Trent Allen - FRO DSW
Ed Holland - Robeson Co. NRCS
Glen Clifton - Prestage Farms

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FAYETTEVILLE REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
May 25, 1999
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY
Sandy Evans 1-18 Farm
Facility No. 78-33
Robeson County
Mr. Sandy Evans
1305 Marietta Rd.
Fairmont, NC 28340
Dear Mr. Evans:
On May 20, 1999, staff from the Fayetteville Regional Office of the
Division of Water Quality conducted an inspection of the Sandy Evans 1-18
Farm in Robeson County. The inspection revealed that lagoon number two
had ten inches of freeboard per the lagoon marker. However, after shooting
the level with a transit, it was determined that the level was actually sixteen
inches at the time of the inspection. This is still less than the required
freeboard of nineteen inches and was not reported to the Fayetteville Regional
Office as required by the General Permit issued to this farm.
Condition III, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, number 6.e.,
states that, "The Permittee shall report by telephone to the appropriate
Regional Office as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours
following first knowledge of the occurrence of any of the following events:
(e.) Failure to maintain storage capacity in a lagoon/storage pond greater than
or equal to that required in Condition V(3) of this General Permit.
In regard to the deficiency(s) noted during the inspection, the
following actions are requested:
Lower the level of the lagoon to the required nineteen inches per your
CAWMP.
2. Set the lagoon marker to reflect the low point in the dam to accurately
record the freeboard level of the lagoon.
225 GREEN STREET, SUITE 714, FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 26301-5043
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Mr. Evans
5-25-99
Page 2
Please provide a written response to this office on or before June 11. 1999 as to the
actions taken or proposed to be taken to resolve this deficiency. Nothing in this letter should be
taken as absolving this facility of the responsibility and liability of any violations that have resulted
or may result from this deficiency.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please contact me at the Fayetteville
Regional Office at [phone].
Sincerely
t- [ ,
ohn C. Hasty, Jr.
Environmental Specialist
cc: Sonya Avant -Compliance Group
Audrey Oxendine-DS WC Fayetteville Office
Ed Holland -Robeson Co. NRCS
Central Files-Rateigh

0 Division of Soil and Water Canseiwa4on OperatiEon Review ty
-_: v=
7.1
"�:• Division of Soil and Water Conservahori rCom hence n� ' Y e R�r
�> Division of Water Quahty `CoinpIianee Inspecfton ¢ "
s.2.a."Y �-�, - S•.•x_.Y',s- , -rd'�'?i,rr'�"'
,r Other Agency. - Operatewa Revrew' ,;?.
10 Routine 0 Complaint 0•Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number %D—EMDDate of inspection
Time of Inspection / 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted � Certified [3 Conditionally Certified// [3 Registered 13 Not O erationaE Date Last Operated: --
In
Farm Name: ....5A -,Ad...._..._ V •v..S.__....�.C...`�.. .... County:........./`�� PS��...._............. ............. .
_ q
Owner Name:...........................G.L..-S Phone No: --------.... .Z .......
Facility Contact: .............. ........................................._,... Title:...................................I.__._ r Phone No: .............' _.._--------•
..
Mailing Address: .....1 .i .7 ....1. ' '.a. r.. ....°. ... __ ����. .�' �. !-.. (.. `'.G .............. ........ ......... TV
Onsite Representative: rte . . Integrator: ....6 .. 4 �7......
............................_
Certified Operator: ........ .... . ........................... ........ � �........._................... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude • �' �"
! Design Current Design Current Design--_. Current
5wi�ie Capacity Population r ' f _
_ Poulfiry_ Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Poptilatton;
❑ Wean to Feeder
[,Feeder to Finish / 2 v
El Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
El Boars
❑ Non -Layer 1 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
w
Total Design Capacity 3 G
SSLW
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
h_ 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. Dies discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 7-1 v
Freeboard (inches): ...... .s fJ.Q rr
.......................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: %� j '� Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenarice/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste A lication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
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?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management PIan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewrnspection with on-site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
• �'�10-yiQlaiigris •or d�fc�e�cie� •wire pQte�• dt�rt;ing �hisvis�t! • Yop :wi�i•reeeiye �o #'u>�gr -
- i
corres oricience a�oiat this :visit: • • • • •
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management PIan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewrnspection with on-site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
• �'�10-yiQlaiigris •or d�fc�e�cie� •wire pQte�• dt�rt;ing �hisvis�t! • Yop :wi�i•reeeiye �o #'u>�gr -
corres oricience a�oiat this :visit: • • • • •
Comments refer to, u soon # E Iajn'att YFSraniwei; andlor art recornmendattons
'
IIse drawings facilt o to better: � lam sihiatto use additi no ai' a es as uecessa y
P T . r .;,
ti , ._ P g . , ry� �� .,L�3 3.. .
�
-�-tt3
t" /
�uc-54,4-fr*_ 6 t e awGrYer Py IXe
l y
'� e %caa- a� 7 e
y
�
�e-�•etrn~��ed Ilse %Pve� `�'�:s �;►+�e
�Qof at.�� a� �,sas
�e� . � � � � � /, �}e �o u� � e /D [tel -� o; ►�-� � n � e
erwtt_ _r- i 1
� 1l as 6SJ,ed oY,- marker
e m4 fetGkcS
leve � wa5 � D�
n � -!r- 20 -'1 . � e IC? Oar^- ; s `t. �'� e Stt �-s ju �o _*e26ar
Reviewer/ins ector Name rt , « r
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: J('-
�/
0 3/23/99