830007_INSPECTIONS_20171231

:1, N
ldm
NUH I H CAROLINA
Deparbnent of Environmental Qual

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number: 830007 Facility Status: Active Permit- AWS830007
Inipsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit- Routine County- Scotland Region:
Date of visit. 02/1412017 Entry Tinw: 03:00 pm Exit Time: 4:00 prn
Farm Name: Farm 5574
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
E] Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 19229 McGirts Bridge Rd Laudnburg NC 28352
Facility Status: 0 Compliant El Not Compliant Integrator Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34* 47'56" Longitude: 79* 24'41"
On the north side of SR 1433 approx. .5 mile east of its intersection with SR 1369 west of the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport.
Question Areas:
M Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor. & Treat Waste Application
0 Records and Documents Other issues
Incident 0
Owner Email:
Phone:
Certified Operator: Ronald Lee Matthews Operator Certification Number 990008
Secondary OIC(s):
On-Ske Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary tnspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830007 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830007
inspection Date: 02114117 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
F (�7S7W7ne - Farrow to Wean 3,927
Total Design Capacity: 3,927
Total SSLW: 1,700,391
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Ty pe Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 19.00 44.00
Lagoon 7574 1 1 1 1
pagei 2

Permit: AWS830007 Owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number: 830007
Inspection Date: 02/14/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Dischames & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Me No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El
0 11
11
Discharge originated at:
Structure
El
Application Field
El
Other
13
a. Was conveyance man-made?
El
U 0
El
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
El
11 M
El
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)
El
El 0
El
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
11
0 El
E]
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
0
0 E]
El
State other th an from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Stora-ge & Treatrnen
Yes
No Na Me
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
El
N E]
1:1
if yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
El
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le] large
M 1:1
E]
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
M El
0
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
El
0 El
1:1
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
El
MCI
11
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
11
0 1:1
E]
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Ma No
10, Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
11 0 El 11
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
El 0 0 El
If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Excessive Ponding?
E]
Hydraulic Overload?
Frozen Ground?
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
El
PAN?
El
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
El
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: AWS830007 Owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number 830007
Inspection Date: 02/14/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastd Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Cotton
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Eustis sand, 0 to 6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Faoeville loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
Soil Type 3
Marlboro loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
Soil Type 4
Lynchburg loamy sand
Soil Type 5
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
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?
E] 0 1:1 1:1
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
El 0 El ED
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El 0 1:1 11
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
1:1 0 11 F1
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
El
0 El
D
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the GAWMP readily available?
E]
0 El
El
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
El
Maps?
n
Lease Agreements?
El
Other?
El
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
El
ME]
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
El
Waste Analysis?
11
Soil analysis?
Cl
Waste Transfers?
11
Weather code?
El
page: 4

.r I
`L,
Permit: AWS830007 Owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number. 830007
Inspection Date� 02/14/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
Rainfall?
n
Stocking?
El
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
0 El
El
23 If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on inigation equipment
0
N El
E]
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
0 El
1:1
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
El
E 11
11
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-complianoe:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
El
0 11
El
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
11
E 1:1
El
Otherissues
Yel
No No Ne
28. Did the facility fait to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
0
N 1:1
El
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,
1:1
0 El
El
contact a regional Xr Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
El
0 E]
El
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facilfty?
E]
0 El
11
If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Application Field
Lagoon / Storage Pond
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any addibonal problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or El E El E]
CAWMP?
33, Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? El 0 E] 11
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 1:1 0 El El
page: 5

0
M Division of Water Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
F-1 Other Agency
Facility Number:
830007 Facility Status: Active permit: AWS830007
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Dale;
Reason for Visit:
Routine County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/1112015 EntryTime: 08:30am Exit Time: 9:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 5574 owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Adclress�
19229 McGirts Bridge Rd Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status:
CompIi,,1 Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34* 47'56' Longitude:
79' 24' 41"
On the north side of SR 1433 approx. .5 mile east of its intersection with SIR 1369 west of the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator:
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
24 hour contact name
On -site representative
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Ronald Lee Matthews
Name
Mike Cudd
Mike Cudd
Operator Certification Number: 990008
Title
Phone
Phone
Phone
Robert Marble Phone:
Dale:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830007
Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC
Facility Number:
830007
inspection Date� 03/11115
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current promotions
Swine
F1 Swine - Farrow to Wean
3,927
Total Design Capacity:
3,927
Total SSLW:
1,700.391
Waste Structures
Disignated
Observed
Type Identifier
Closed Date Start Date
Freeboard
Freeboard
Lagoon 19.00 35.00
Lagoon 7574
page: 2

Permit� AWS830007 Owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number: 830007
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharnes & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1 - Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El
0 El
El
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
El
Other
M
a. Was conveyance man-made?
0
El 0
El
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
E]
El 0
El
C, What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, not4 DWQ)
El
El M
El
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El
ME-111
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
1:1
0 El
El
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatiment
Yes
No Na Ne
4� Is storage capacity less than adequate?
E]
0 0
11
If yes. is waste level into structural freeboard?
El
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (i.e./ large
El
0 0
L]
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
0
M El
El
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
El
M El
El
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
El
M EJ
El
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 El
El
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
E] M 1:3 El
maintenance or improvement?
11 - Is there evidence of incorrect application?
0 M El F1
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
El
Hydraulic Overload?
EJ
Frozen Ground?
E]
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn. etc)?
El
PAN?
1:1
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs�?
0
Total Phosphorus?
0
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
1:1
Outside of acceptable crop window?
1:1
Evidence of wind drift?
D
Application outside of application area?
13
page: 3

Permit: AWS830007
Inspection Date: 03111/15
Owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number: 830007
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Cotton
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type I
Eustis sand, 0 to 6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Faceville loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
Soil Type 3
Lynchburg loamy sand
Soil Type 4
Marlboro loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
Soil Type 5
Wagram loamy sand, 0 to
2% slopes
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
0 El
E]
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El
0 El
El
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
El
0 El
El
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El
00
El
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El
0 1:1
El
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
11
0 El
E3
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
El
0 E3
El
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
El
Maps?
El
Lease Agreements?
El
Other?
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
E]
Weekly Freeboard?
E]
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
Waste Transfers?
0
Weather code?
1:1
page: 4

Permit: AWS830007 Owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number: 830007
Inspection Date: 03/11/15 Iripsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Rainfall?
Stocking?
Crop yields?
120 Minute inspections?
Monthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
M El
1:1
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]
0 El
1:1
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
E]
ME]
0
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
El
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
1:1
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
El
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
2& Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
E]
0 El
El
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
E]
0 El
11
Other Issues
Yes No Na N
2B. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
El
M El
E]
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,
El
M El
1:1
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
El
M El
El
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
El
E El
El
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
Lagoon I Storage Pond
E]
Other
El
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
El
0 El
El
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
11
El
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
11
0 El
El
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Facility Number:
830007 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS830007
F1 Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit;
Routine County:
Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
0311912014 Entry Time: 08:30 am Exit Time: 9:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 5574
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone�
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NG 28398
Physical Address-
19229 McGirts Bridge Rd
Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status:
0 Compliant El Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34* 47'56- Longitude:
79' 24'41"
On the north side of SR 1433 approx. .5 mile east of its intersection with SR 1369 west of the Laudnburg-Maxton Airport.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Otherissues
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 2128114.
Site visit 3/19/14.
page: 1

A I
Permit: AWS830007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830007
inspection Date: 03119/14 1 npsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
EJ Swine - Farrow to Wean
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
.agoon 19,00
7574
page: 2

Permit: AWS830007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830007
inspection Date: 03/19/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El
E El
EJ
Discharge originated at:
Structure
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
0
110
F1
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
0
0 E
0
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El
0 El
El
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
El
0 El
El
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 (1.0 large
El
E El
El
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed througha
El
N El
0
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
El
E L1
El
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
El
OE]
L]
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 El
El
maintenance or improvement?
Waste ARplication
Yes _tj �ON
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
El 0 0 El
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
El
Hydraulic Overload?
F1
Frozen Ground?
F1
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
El
PAN?
El
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs�?
El
Total Phosphorus?
El
Failure to incorporate manureisludge into bare soil?
D
Outside of acceptable crop window?
1:1
Evidence of wind drift?
D
Application outside of application area?
D
page: 3

Permit: AWS830007 Owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number:
830007
Inspection Date: 03/19/14 1 ripsection Type� Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type I
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
C otton
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Eustis sand, 0 to 6%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Faceyille
Soil Type 3
Lynchburg
Soil Type 4
Marlboro
Soil Type 5
Wagram
Soil Type 6
14� Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
El E El
E]
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?
1:1 0 El
0
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19� Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
1:3 0 E] 0
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
L] E L] 0
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
El
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?
El
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
Rainfall?
IJ
Stocking?
page: 4

Permit� AWS830007 Owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number: 630007
Inspection Date: 03119114 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
El
120 Minute inspections?
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
E]
M El
1:1
21 If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
M 1:1
0
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
11
M 0
13
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
0
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
0
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
0
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
0
ME]
El
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
0
0 El
El
Otherissues
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,
El
No[]
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
El
ME]
El
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
Ll
ME]
11
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
F1
Lagoon I Storage Pond
El
Other
F1
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
0
ME]
1:1
CAWMP?
31 Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
1:1
M El
El
34, Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El
0 El
El
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
El Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number:
830007 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS830007
Denied Access
Inpsection Typo:
Compliance Inspection
inactive Or Closed Date!
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
02127/2013 Entry Time: 08:30 am
Exit Time� 9:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 5574
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
19229 McGirts Bridge Rd
Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status:
0 Compliant El Not Compliant
Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34' 47' 56" Longitude:
79'24-41"
On the north side of SR 1433 approx. .5 mile east of its intersection with SR 1369 west of the Laud nburg-M axion Airport
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Coi, Stor. & Treat Waste Application
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:
Inspector Siqnaturo�
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 2/14/13
Site visit 2/27113
Robert Marble Phone:
Date:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830007 owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number: 830007
Inspection Date� 02/27113 fripsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit� Routine
Regulated operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 3,927
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date FTeeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 19.00
Lagoon 7574
page: 2

Permit: AWS830007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830007
Inspection Date: 02J27/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
DischaEges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El
ME]
11
Discharge originated at:
Structure
El
Application Field
Other
a. Was conveyance man-made?
El
El M
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
0
El M
E]
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)
IJ
E] 0
El
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El
0 El
13
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
M El
El
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yus No No Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
El
M El
1:1
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
El
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (LeJ large
El
MEI
El
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6, Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
El
M El
11
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
1:1
0 El
EJ
8, Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
El
M El
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
El
0 El
El
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
El M E] 11
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?
El
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
1:1
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
El
page: 3

Permit: AWS830007 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown ILLC Facility Number: 830007
Inspection Date: 02127/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yos No Na
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3 Cotton
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Eustis sand, 0 to 6% slopes
Soil Type 2
Fareville
Soil Type 3
Lyncht>urg
Soil Type 4
Maftoro
Soil Type 5
WagTarn
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
El
0 IJ
1:1
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El
N E]
El
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design of wettable acre
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El
0 D
El
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
El
E El
1:1
20 Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
El
0 1:1
El
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUPI?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Lease Agreements?
Other?
if Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
El
E El
1:1
If yes. check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
Weekly Freeboard?
Waste Analysis?
Soil analysis?
E]
Waste Transfers?
Weather code?
Rainfall?
Stocking?
page:
4

Permit. AWS830007 Owner -Facility: Murphy-BrownLLC Facility Number:
830007
Inspection Date: 02/27/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
120 Minute inspections?
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
Sludge Survey
El
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
0
0 El
El
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
0 EJ
El
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
0 EJ
El
25. is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
0 E]
El
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?
IJ
0 0
11
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
IJ
0 0
0
Otherissues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
0
0 1]
El
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,
El
ME]
0
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
El
0 0
13
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems. over -a ppli cation)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
0
0 1:1
11
if yes, check the appropriate box below,
Application Field
D
Lagoon I Storage Pond
El
Other
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
0
M 1:1
13
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewertinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
D
0 El
1:1
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
0
ED
0
page: 5

i ype of v isu: W %iance rnspecnon v uperauua xeview V structure tJvatuauon V r ecnntcat Asstsrance
Reason for Visit: ® Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: a / Arrival Time: { Departure Time: O County Region:'����
Farm Name: CJ5 1 14- 1 y Owner Email:
Owner Name: to (p�.� j (pcy Y1 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: `,
Facility Contact: (W A-e 0,u Title: Phone:
�.a
Onsite Representative: Integrator: rnLA­,P jDb�lll fSf0w r.N
Certified Operator:
Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design @urrent
a Design Current Design Current
SwtneCapacity Pop.
WettP,oultry�yCapacity Pop. Cattier Capacity Pop.
airy Cow
Layer Dairy Calf
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
- .Design Current Dry Cow
D , P,oul:;.Ca aci Po Non-Dai
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
ate
La ers Beef Stocker
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Non -La ers Beef Feeder
Pullets Beef Brood Cow
Boars
._ .
Turkeys
Other : K ,
ITurkey Poults
Other
10ther
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ® NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑Yes
❑ No
� NA
❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
;E3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412011 Continued

IFacility Number: Wate of ImEection: '7
Waste CoRection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? 0 Yes 0 No D NA D NE
a. if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? D Yes E] No 0) NA D NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there anv immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
Yes
No
C:] 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 pubUc health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance Or improvement?
Yes
W No
D NA
D NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
Yes
0 No
[:] NA
D 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
D Yes
P No
0 NA
E] NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
Yes
[�j No
[:] NA
[:] NE
maintenance or improvement?
I I - Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. D Yes �j No [:] NA D NE
Excessive Ponding 0 Hydraulic Overload Ej Frozen Ground DHeavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
PAN [] PAN > 10% Or 10 lbs. Total Phosphorus [:] Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
D Outside of Acceptable Crop Window D Evidence of Wind Drift ED Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 2�_e_( M�A vc�_' f, 0'-)e V sc- e�
13.Soi]Type(s):
L_40CE6(Ais
S�
14. Do The receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? D Yes EgXo DNA D NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? D Yes [P No NA D NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure arid/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable Yes [P No NA D NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a tack of properly operating waste application equipment?
DYes [K] No D NA [:] NE
D Yes Q�p No D NA D NE
Reguired 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,
Ej W"U P DChecklists [:]Design D Maps 0 Lease Agreements 00ther:
2 1. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. D Yes [� No
F� Waste Application [:] Weekly Freeboard D Waste Analysis 0 Soil Analysis D Waste Transfers
F-1 Rainfall []StockingE] Crop Yield F-1 120 Minute Inspections D 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 No
[:) NA [:] NE
D Weather Code
Sludge Survey
D NA E] NE
[:] NA C] NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Condnued

Facility Number- 3 - 'I [Date of Inspection: --D
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Yes T24-No E] NA NE
r__
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check E] Yes F!j'No E] NA NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
F-1 Failure to complete annual sludge survey E] Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
F-1 Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fall to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? [:]Yes ONo [:] NA NE
27- Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? [:]Yes [3 No r"NA NE
um
Other Issues
2& 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 1. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
E] Application Field [:] Lagoon/Storage Pond F-1 Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWNW?
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?
E] Yes
[ff No
NA
NE
Yes
No
NA
NE
Yes
No
NA
NE
E] Yes
b!j No
Ej NA
E] NIE
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
NA NE
NA NE
NA NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or ally other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
�_� e-C 0 e2 C;.'""� 1 +411,;
Q/07//3
Reviewer/inspector Name�
Reviewer/Inspector Signatu
I ()—Ii 14 ;S'
Phone: Q 4,_3 , loo
Date: c;J' /c�.l Z 13
2141201;
Page 3 of 3

type of Visit: O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: 517 J r G Arrival Time: r rst Departure Time: County: �Jp Region:
Farm Name: �{ s� Owner Email:
Owner Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: At 6 cjj Title:
Onsite Representative: A
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: &A_4WL1'4Owe,
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
-_ -
Swtne - 'Capacity
Design Current
i'op.
Wet Poultry
Desigm, u ent"Current
Capacth P_op Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
on -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
Design Cyrreat Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
Dr .Poultr
Ca act „°tPo Non -Dairy
Farrow to 1 inish
Layers
= Beef Stocker
Gilts
Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
1..
her
Ot-
OthZ.
er
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees and Stream impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[ NA
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
i
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

lFacility Number: ig 7�p - Date of Inspection: I I
_j
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? E] Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? Ej Yes
Structure I Structure 2
Identifier: I
Spillway?:
Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
No F] NA E3 NE
No 1� NA F] NE
Structure 6
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Ej Yes No E] NA E] 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 E] 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?
E] Yes No
[:] NA
NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
E] Yes No
[DNA
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
NF,
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
Yes No
1�
NA
NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes 0 No
NA
NE
Excessive Ponding [:] Hydraulic Overload E] Frozen Ground Ej Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
PAN F PAN> 10%or 101bs. E] Total Phosphorus 0 Failure to Incorporate
Manure/Sludge into
Bare Soil
Outside of Acceptable Crop Window E] Evidence of Wind Drift 0 Application
Outside of A)proved Area
12. Crop Type(s): Cbas-(af 13�" A, ryoA�
13. Soil Type(s): 1�cevi lk. L hfad AA
5nz
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designatelin the CAVIAP?
Ej Yes ;0 No
F] NA
0 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
F] Yes No
NA
NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate Per the irrigation design or wettable
E] Yes No
NA
NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
Yes o
NA
NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Yes No
NA
NE
Rle_�uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
Ej Yes No
E] 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 E] Design [] Maps [] Lease Agreements 00ther:
2 1. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes., check the appropriate box below. E] Yes B�)No
n Waste Application E] Weekly Freeboard Ej Waste Analysis 0 Soil Analysis [] Waste Traksfers
nRainfall [:]Stocking 0 Crop Yield [:] 120 Minute Inspections E] Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 0 Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [] Yes No
NA [:] NE
Weather Code
E] Sludge Survey
NA [:] NE
NA E] NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fait to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? Yes No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with pen -nit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below. P
Failure to complete annual sludge survey Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
Non -compliant sludge I evel s 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?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
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 iminediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (Le., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
3 1. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
E:1 Application Field El Lagoon/Storage Pond Fj Other:
NA NE
NA NE
Yes �q No 0 NA E] NE
Yes No 1�9 NA [—] NE
yes_� No
Yes No
E] Yes No
[:] Yes No
[:] NA [::] NE
[:] NA 0 NE
[] NA [:] NE
[:] NA [:] NE
32, Were any additional problems noted which cause nori-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? Yes No NA NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Ins ector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? Yes
P Yes No NA NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? Yes E No E] NA NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any,other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary). I
Reviewer/inspector Name: 'VA �� Phone: wo--M--33�10
7--V M46 le-
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: -2,
Page 3 of 3 21412011

9P1,16 V-/z--,70/0
Type of Visit (7-Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0_k0__U`tine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit- 13-2-15 -/07 Arrival Time. Departure Time: County. 560-1-111.01
-$ Owner Emafl:
FarmName: (old "t 757q)—
Lt-c-
Owner Name: Phone.
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title: Phone No:
0Y - xP111— If . j
Onsite ReDresentative: IntelFratflr-
Certified Operator: AA
Back-up Operator:
/91,44- (fqkj/W
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region:
? 96 -7-52,
Location of Farm: Latitude. [=o =, =" Longitude: = 0 = I = 11
Le: rew
NQqesi_g% rren
ren
0 ffitio
it C
Itt" CII a it @�;#p cifty P0
ap
.3 �y A A
'2�� J&P
to Finish
1[3 Layer
El Dairy Cow
to Feeder
JIM Non -Layer I
I
El Dairy Calf
ee er to Finish
. . .... El Dairy Heifer
0 Farrow to Wean
,y, Rolt
El Dry Cow
El Farrow to Feeder
ers
El Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish 12-00
n-La ers
El Beef Stocker
Gilts
El Beef Feeder
Boars Pullets
D Beef Brood CoNvi
E]Turkevs
e El Turkey Poultsi
i
Num e u9s:
Other Other
Discharj!cs & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 0 Structure El Application Field El 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?
El Yes 0 No [:1 NA El NE
El Yes
El No
0 NA
El NE
El Yes
El No
10 NA
ONE
ERPNA
D NE
El Yes
El No
[I Yes
0 No
[] NA
0 NE
[_1 Yes
5fNo
El NA
D NE
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

r
Facility Number: 63 —47e)-7 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El Yes 9�No El NA [__1 NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [__1 Yes [Z(No [INA [__1 NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 0 _!��7�1-1
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 7
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? Elyes 0 No [j NA El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed E]Yes VNo D NA [:1 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? Ej Yes $ No [] NA [I NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? [_1 Yes PfNo [:1 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 El Yes WNo El NA [:1 NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, Or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
El Yes 0 No D NA El NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes &No D NA El NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn. etc.)
[--]PAN [:IPAN>10%orl0lbs El Total Phosphor -us El Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
El Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 4LK-
Af e"O"r—)
13. Soil type(s) S_avat . FaCCVIlle A YA"t-A /1.14 A J' /A 0 eV - Ald �qklq
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
Yes
Qf No
[I NA
C] NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Yes
Ej No
El NA
Ej NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
Yes
VP No
[] N A
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
ONo
El NA
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[__1 Yes
RNo
[:1 NA
El NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use dirmOngs of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name V Phone:
Revie,wer/Inspector Signature: 'A5 Z"_� Date: 7 — 00/0
Page 2 of 3
12128104 Confinued

Facility Number: 83 _'9 Date of Inspection
Reguired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? Yes [23 No El NA El NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check Yes [9 No El NA El NE
the appropriate box. El WUP [J Checklists [:1 Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes JZ No El NA [:3 NE
El Waste Application El Weekly Freeboard El Waste Analysis El Soil Analysis El Waste Transfers El Annual Certification
DRainfall ElStocking []CropYield 0 120 Minute Inspections El Monthly and I" Rain Inspections [:]WeatherCode
22. Did the facility fall to install and maintain a rain gauge? E]Yes CYNo El NA [:1 NE
23. If selected., did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 0 Yes 21 No El NA El NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the pen -nit?
El Yes
Wo
El NA
El NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
0 No
El NA
El NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
El Yes
0 No
[:1 NA
El NE
27-
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
E]Yes
19 No
[1 NA
El NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
E]Yes
V No
F1 NA
[:1 NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
Yes
[5No
E] 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?
El Yes
ONo
1:1 NA
El NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 1.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
Yes
[2PNo
0 NA
El NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
El Yes
[53 No
E1 NA
0 NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
[,_20No
0 NA
El NE
Comments andlor Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other f❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 17 D Arrival Time, Departure Time: � County: �w� `�'�� Region:r'1"0
Farm Name: { r Owner Email:
Owner Name: MUA-12T&W jj L1-- Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
c
Facility Contact: Af741~hf Title:
Onsite Representative: 11
Certified Operator: Saa- ws
Back-up Operator:��Zu"�S
Phone No:
Integrator: 1'i�Gt� Q( C
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
I..ocation of Farm: Latitude: = o F--I 6 = « Longitude: = ° =' = "
Design Current Design Current , Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacityl.'optlat,on' Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish y
❑ Layer
" ❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Non -Layer ❑ DairyCalf
❑ Feeder to Finish El Dairy Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean r ❑ D Cow
Dry Poultry s 54
,.. ❑ Farrow to Feeder El Non -Dairy
❑ Layers arrow to Finish /a� Qo �+ ❑ Beef Stoclter
❑Gilts "❑ Non -Layers
72:
❑ Pullets ❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars ❑ Turke s - ❑ Beef Brood Co
Other. 'r -� ❑ Turke Poults
❑ Other ❑Other Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
V NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
[--]No
NA
❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
bNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3" Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
IbNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

'b I Faciht-y Number:
�__7_ 1 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?
StrUiture I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
E]Yes 1j] No El NA El NE
D Yes D No EJ)NA EINE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier -
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in)� sm (4
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
El Yes
P No
El NA
ED NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
Yes
[��No
El NA
D 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
In No
El NA
El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
El Yes
29 No
0 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
0 Yes
19 No
El NA
[I NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
[I Yes
No
(--INA
[:1 NE
maintenance/improvement?
IQ
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below,
El Yes
0 No
0 NA
El NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
DPAN EIPAN>10%orl0lbs El Total Phosphor -us El Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
El Outside of Acceptable Crop Window DEvidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of
Area
�0_rmqIQL6!�1)42�4_6�
12. Crop type(s) OjM��
13. Soil type(s) V/ -irai'i Zyric_4L
14. Do the receiving crops ditter trom those designated in the CAWMP?
-6 Yes
P No
El NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement9
0 Yes
ONo
[] NA
0 NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
E] Yes
T No
El NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
[P No
El NA
El NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
El Yes
[_,3 No
[:1 NA
El NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
A6
'W
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

A
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Reciuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? Elyes �PNo El NA Ll NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWNP readily available? If yes, check E] Yes No D NA Ej NE
the appropriate box. D WUP El Checklists D Design El Maps 0 Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes *0 El NA El NE
El Waste Application [:1 Weekly Freeboard [:] Waste Analysis [I Soil Analysis El Waste Transfers Annual Certification
El Rainfall El Stocking 0 Crop Yield El 120 Minute Inspections El Monthly and I " Rain Inspections El Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? Elycs �'No El NA [] NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain raiDbTeakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes [__1 No �JINA [:1 NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
0 Yes
No
[] NA
El NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El yes
No
El NA
[:1 NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
[I Yes
No
[I NA
El NE
2T
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
El Yes
No
�INA
El NE
Otherissues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
E]Yes
No
El NA
[:1 NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
0 Yes
No
[I NA
El 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?
1:1 Yes
No
El NA
[:] NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 1.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
1:1 Yes
No
El NA
[__1 NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/frispector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
0 Yes
1P No
El NA
El NE
33,
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
0 Yes
6 No
0 NA
El NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other [] Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: Fir m 55-7LO Owner Email:
OwnerName: At"02M brVol, Phone: —
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
__Mle ��
Facifity Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Region- L92
Phone No:
Integrator, AL-_924�) 13f_0U_)k%
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =0 = [=16 Longitude: [=0=4 [�46
briesigr
nt
aci .0
a aci ulabon
Pot
* Finish
ow
* Feeder
-
El Feeder to Finish
oult
rs
Layers
Pullets
0 Turk
—eys
Turkey Poults
Daily Heifer
El Dry Cow
El Non -Dairy
El Beef Stocker
10 Beef Feeder
10 Beef Brood Cow
El Farrow to Wean
D Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to inish
Gilts
E]Boars
0
El Other
Num e c ures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
El Yes
No
0 NA
El NE
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
Yes
No
NA
D NE
b- Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
El No
IP NA
EINE
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
E_
I
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
El Yes
0 No
V9 NA
EINE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
El Yes
No
El NA
[-I NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
C1 Yes
VW No
[I NA
[I NE
other than from a discharge'?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: f_11U_ ri
Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El Yes 1p No El NA El NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? El Yes El No RNA 0 NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway? -
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any initnediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? 0 Yes No El NA El NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed E]Yes No El NA [:1 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? El Yes 0 No El NA El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes X] 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 El Yes �jNo El NA 1-1 NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El Yes P No El NA El NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 0 Yes [)9 No [:1 NA [:1 NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground 0 Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
DPAN [3PAN>10%or10lbs [:]Total Phosphorus El Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
El Outside of Acceptable Crop Window E] Evidence of Wind Drift 0 Application Outside of Area
12, Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
[3 Yes
§9 No
D NA
0 NE
15, Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
[I Yes
P No
D NA
[I NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?D Yes
r1n
jpNo
El NA
D NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
V3 No
El NA
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
D Yes
[�INo
El NA
D NE
Comments (refer io question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Us� draiwilngs of facility,to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/inspector Name Phone: 433-3ko
I 1"n
ReviewerA nspector Signature: Date: !jVV I
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Conffnued

Facility Number: 03 A Da e of Inspection I qP6100
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? El Yes QgNo 0 NA E] NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes $3 No 0 NA 0 NE
the appropirate box. 0 WUP 0 Checklists El Design El Maps 0 Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. 0 Yes S No El NA El NE
0 Waste Application 0 Weekly Freeboard 0 Waste Analysis 0 Soil Analysis El Waste Transfers El Annual Certification
ORainfall E]Stocking [:]CropYicld E] 120 Minute Inspections 0 Monthly and V Rain Inspections OWeatherCode
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
[I Yes
T!] No
0 NA
[:1 NE
23.
If selected. did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
0 Yes
SNo
El NA
ONE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
0 Yes
bNo
0 NA
ONE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the pen -nit?
[I Yes
JU No
[:1 NA
El NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
0 Yes
IpNo
0 NA
ONE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
0 Yes
QNo
0 NA
0 NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
[:1 Yes
IRNo
ONA
0 NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
E]Yes
0 No
0 NA
0 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?
[I Yes
&9 No
0 NA
ONE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 1.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
El Yes
f] No
ONA
El NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
0 Yes
VNo
[3 NA
ONE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
El Yes
R No
0 NA
El NE
lAdditional Comments and/or Drawings: I
Page 3 of 3 12128104

0 Division of Water Quality
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
1 :1 O.Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral () Emergency 0 Other [I Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: S1_�qLtt__ Owner Email:
0wner Name- tA (A-Y-P 11t, Phonk-i
Mailing Address:
Phvsical Address:
-5ceff"d—
` �e o ,
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: MU.-e-L,
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region: F?-D
Latitude: = F--I = Longitude: = 0 =' =1
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wetpoultry capacity Populafion Cattle
10 Wean to Finish
El Wean to Feeder
El Feeder to Finish
El Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder
al'arrow to Finish lgx�
,E] Gilts
10 Boars
Other
JO Other
11 Layer
10 Non-Layet
Dry Poultry
1:1 Lavers
El Non -Layers
0 Pullets
0 Turkeys
D Turkey Poults
10 Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: 0 Structure El Application Field [I Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Capacity Population
El Dairy Cow
T_
0 Dairy Calf
0 Dairy Heifei
_j
El Dry Cow
El Non -Dairy
El Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
10 Beef Brood Co"
Number of Structures: M
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State'? (If ves. notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the wastc 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?
El Yes. fgNo El NA El NE
Dyes
E]No
PNA
ONE
Yes
Ej No
y NA
El NE
PNA
0 NE
E] Yes
El No
El Yes
"SNo
ONA
El NE
El Yes
No
[:1 NA
[:] NE
12128104 Continued

I -Facility Number-.
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 fr-ceboaTd?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: 5-S'7ql
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 3y le
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?
El Yes V1 No [__1 NA EINE
El Yes El No ZNA [] NE
Structure 5 cture 6
Llyes ULNo LINA EINE
El Yes rRNo El NA [__1 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? [__1 Yes R No El NA [I NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? El Yes No El NA EINE
(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 [:1 Yes No El NA EINE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need El Yes IP No [I NA [_1 NE
maintenance/improvement?
]I. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. C1 Yes D9 No El NA El NE
El Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload El Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
[--]PAN [:IPAN>10%orl0lbs 0Total Phosphorus El Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
El Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12.
Crop type(s) QLot'j ) j 5?"4 CT-4-1h a-et� 1 C44-4-", J A)kiq;-
13,
Soil type(s) FaL4-"- �cqkj
L, � L,,I") ��a'8'
14.
Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
El Yes
M No
El NA
El NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
El Yes
[5 No
El NA
El NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
[:] Yes
171 No
[:1 N A
El NE
17.
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
El Yes
[P No
[__1 N A
0 NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
D Yes
P No
[:1 NA
El NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
ReviewerA nspector Signature: Date: -7
Page 2 of 3 1 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Reouired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? OYes MNo EINA ONE
20- Does the facility fail to have all components of the CA)VW readily available? If yes, check [71 Yes No El NA El NE
the appropriate box. El VV_U`P El Checklists 0 Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 0 Yes No El NA El NE
0 Waste Application 0 Weekly Freeboard El Waste Analysis 0 Soil Analysis El Waste Transfers 0 Annual Certification
0 Rainfall 0 Stocking 0 Crop Yield 0 120 Minute Inspections 0 Monthly and I " Rain Inspections 0 Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
[--]Yes
'El No
E] NA
El NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
El Yes
ONo
El NA
El NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the pen -nit?
[__1 Yes
0 No
El NA
0 NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
El Yes
PNo
0 NA
El NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
Yes
P No
[:1 NA
El NE
27,
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
0 Yes
No
0 NA
[_1 NE
Otherissues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
El Yes
ZNo
0 NA
El NE
29.
Did the facility fail to property dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
El Yes
MI No
0 NA
0 NIE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than non-nal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
El Yes
W No
0 NA
El NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
3 1.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
0 Yes
[N No
El NA
El NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
0 Yes
0 No
0 NA
0 NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
[-I Yes
2 No
0 NA
El NE
ra
jAdditinnal Comments andfor D wmgs:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

\NA��
0
0 )441:� ­c
December 1, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Carroll's Foods Inc
7574
PO Drawer 856
Warsaw, NC 28398
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G, Ross Jr.. Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Subject: Application for Renewal of Coverage for Expiring NPDES General Permit
Dear Permittee:
Alan W, Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
RECEIVED
DEC 0 6 20M
ON - FAVFTWIIE REMN4 ME
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 ht!p://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/aps/afou/downtoads.htm 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 vour continued coverap-e under one of these two types of general permits, you must submit an apr)lication for permit
coverne to the Division. Enclosed vou will find a 'Request for Certificate of Coverage Facility Currently Covered by an Expidag
NPDES General Permit.' The aimlication form must be completed and returned bv January 2, 2007. Please note. you must include
two M copies of your most recent Waste Utilization Plan 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 of NCGS 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): Scotland County Soil and Water Conservation District
Fayetteville Regional Office, Aquifer Protection Section
AFO Unit Central Files - 830007
Carroll's Foods Inc
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center Raicigh. NC 27699-1636
Internet: www.ncwatffqua1itv.orp Location: 2728 Capital Boulevard Raleigh, NC 27604
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Acton Employer- 50% Recycled/1 0% Post Consurner Paper
Telephone:
Fax 1:
Fax 2:
Customer Service:
one
NoTthCarolina
(9 19) lvaturaffy
[phone]
[phone]
[phone]

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 40 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other El Denied Access
Date of Visit: E� ArrivalTime. JX430tp- DepartureTime: County: S��D Region: RZO
0_ -'70)'
Farm Name: (T5 Owner Email:
OwnerName: AVAU, _61.0aylIcc Phone:
I I I
Mailing Address -
Physical Address: �Jj,
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Repre5entative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: /q,14ca" — &Ot4l,
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0 =6 Longitude: =O=t
W Ga �kci ula 'on
A
%Ui C. ac ula 'on mame
c
esign
Wean to Finish
er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Q
ou n
Layers
Non -Layers
Dairy Heife r
Farrow to Wean
E]Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
229
El Non -Dairy
153 Farrow to Finish
MRS.
El Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
IE] Boars El Pullets
na—El Turkeys
gr&A� lit, .......... 0 Turkev P oults
10 Beef Brood Cow
um ctures:
El Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made9
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 P No El NA 0 NE
EJYes
E]No
P NA
EINE
El Yes
El No
Tj NA
El NE
[4 NA
El NE
C-1 Yes
[I No
El Yes
No
El NA
0 NE
El Yes
No
El NA
[:1 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
PNo [I NA El NE
a. If yes, is waste I evel into the structural freeboard?
El Yes
[_1 No �INA El NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
El Yes
No NA 0 NE
V
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
Elyes
No NA C1 NE
V
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?
El Yes
No [_1 NA [3 NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
El Yes
No [:1 NA [I 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
El Yes
No El NA NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
El Yes
[PNo D NA NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below.
El Yes
1P No 0 NA [:1 NE
0 Excessive Ponding El Hydraulic Overload [:1 Frozen Ground El Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
EIPAN EIPAN>10%or]Olbs [:]Total Phosphorus El Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
El Outside of Acceptable Crop Window El Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside
of Area
13. Soil type(s) r.� , W nai sviWe- i 1-1Qar-a e-1
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
El Yes
'P No
El NA
El NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
[:1 Yes
FUf No
r
EINA
[:1 NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre detennination?El Yes
q No
El NA
El NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
0 Yes
MNo
0 NA
El NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
[I Yes
EoNo
El NA
[:1 NE
.eomiments (rffer t6 question.#): E lain any'YES answers and,/or any recommendationi or any other coniments.
XP
Use. drawings of facility to better explain situations. Juse additional pages as neces
cc�
All-, -1,4
Reviewerfinspector Name Phone: qJ0
Reviewer/I nspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 03Date of Inspection
Required Records &: Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 16 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No rA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes �}No El NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard El Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers �`❑' Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
21 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
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
I)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
Wo
❑ NA
ElNE
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
o
❑ 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
ElYes
�] No
ElNA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
l
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
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

-
_J
n
+ x� '�-� _ O lhyision of Sa vVster Conse_iv tton _ -� - _
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine C) Complaint C) Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facilih'somber 3 Date of Visit: � �`I� Time: g? Ca
.. - loot O erationa! 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® C�eertified © Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm 'same: __ (fdkr_r--n1\'s �air w. 7:97 { County: Fr-0
Owner Name: a v V � kN A Fo o at s r+ �. _ Phone No: 10 ^ 3 - 3'f 3'F
Mailing Address: e 0 Qo %S Q a ,p c ^L�+ 4y W e ,lk\� CA-sa vt4 .�06 `lSfr
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Phone No:
Integrator: a. r r a t�j
Operator Certification number:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' ` 0- Longitude 0'
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca achy Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca acih Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Laver I I I El DairyI I :::j
ElFeeder to Finish ❑ Non -Laver Non -patty
❑ Farrow to Wean
El Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
® Farrow to Finish .70o Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ goyim I Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ S ray Field Area
Holding Ponds I Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid -Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge ori^_inated at: El Lagoon ❑ Sprav Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in eal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ves. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Stmeture I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
Identifier: f
❑ Yes Da No
[I Yes El No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
El Yes El No
[I Yes El No
Structure b
Freeboard (inches): 3,311
05103107 Continued

Facility Number: F,3 — "]
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of 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 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
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 or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP. checklists. design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (iel 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?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ 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
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit, You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Ueat� p;q :.. �-1\,� l��oof.7 - ( 1ecsC_ V.c_Y�%4> c dt•,s�osc
lQ...�
O T y O I� CY 1 . A p! '"C r` s IIJ S p G G.TG r C cl , l t Ci r Cq
//W
G7L -S C 1.� S.S toQ 1n4 S O r D k C wN,
J o r s Iq 00 .CJ CA Cr 6
�
Reviewer/inspector Name L a r y f Ic
Reviewer/InspectorSignature: Date:
05103101 1 Continued

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit I&Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: /, —d Arrival Time: I Ell Departure Time: .>.S County: SL07'i4N�
Farm Name: ��S7y1 [ D/c/Cat nil"J '0757t1_) Owner Email:
Owner Name: iry��._ _ BYU�/J Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: ,`- �/
Facility Contact: /Yl i Xe-, /S!t'I4fzW5 _ Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Region: 'PTV
Phone No:
Integrator: &_&a 4 zf, xA- n/
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = u = 1 = ,1 Longitude: 0 ° = f 0 u
Design Current
W:T=_esign
Current
Dapacity
Population
Wet Popacity
Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ an to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dai Cow
❑ an to Feeder
❑Non -La er I
El Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
-
❑ Dai r Heifer
❑ Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
"
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
4 � 3
❑ Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish QO
❑ Layers
El Stocker
ILI Gilts
El Non-LayNetsers
El
El Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
El Pullets
El Beef Broad Cow
Other
❑ Turkevs
Turkey Poults
❑ Other
❑ Other I
umber of Structures: EJ
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
1p No
❑ NA
FINE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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)
El Yes
Q9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
ElNA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

9T o -,%-
Facility Number: 10 — 49 1 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 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): Zo
�T
Observed Freeboard (in): ,33
❑ Yes [9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
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
[P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
q No
❑ NA [:1 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 ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
1 ] 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 El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) u ta` a�- 111 v nJ
13. Soil type(s) //57�j S c. i.Ife�i� f 6o /5d
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
Cl Yes
[V 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
29 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #f): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
3
Reviewer/Inspector Name /`G -Z1& Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

FFaciliri Number: 913 —O] Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes O 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 El Checklists El Design El 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 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?
El Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[;4 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
(
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
2T
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ 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
[F?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
WNo
❑ 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
EkNo
❑ 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
fid No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
(B No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Facility Number
0 Division of Water Quality
Q Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: /Z'2Q`Q Arrival Time: 0 : 5 rtw. Departure Time: County: 54�'-0t/ Region:
Farm Name: ASS 7 Z [Old _(6kn ii's # 75 7�) Owner Email:
�Owner Name: k j 9� LJ/l/ Phone:
1••lailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _��jT1/ �, Th, e�h— Title:
Onsite Representative:>r—
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
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Phone No:
Integrator:, c
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =1 o =1 Longitude: = o ❑ , = "
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑Non -Laver
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkevs
❑ Turke - Ponits
❑ 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 convevance man-made`?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
h. Did the dischar�ize reach waters of the State`' (I f yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters ol'thc State (gallons)"
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? {If ves. notifv DWQ)
?. 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
❑ NA
❑ N E
❑ Yes
ER No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ Yes
% No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number; '33 — 07 Date of inspection fZ-:20-
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes CS No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? [--]Yes [!9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): a
Observed Freeboard (in): 30.s
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? ❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not property addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes [N 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
[SNo
❑ 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
[KNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
LN 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 Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside
of Area
/.. �Crop
12. Crop type(s) 3erm cdaa Im `16,ea VU P✓ek5�cat� Co`fa,,j . tjA e.,,_4
13. Soil type(s) t
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination` ❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
17, Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/Inspector NamejQIG�vs Phone: L` S ,�
ReviewerAnspector Signature: P.c.�[r� Date: /2 —ZO - 2005
LL/LV/VT I. ...I.-

• Facility Number: -Q 7 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 appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design
g ❑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 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
D9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
tZ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[S No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ 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
[X 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
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additiotial Comments and/or Drawings:
I2128104

IType of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
on for Visit O Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date or Visit- ra D Tame:®/
Facility Number
r Not Operational O Below Threshold
E3 Permitted ❑ Certified [] Conditionally Certified 13Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: _ .__ . S _ _ _ _ _ County: SC_o +I a "Xek
Owner Name: _ _. - - �- Phone No: _ _ l0 �4�
Xfaiiing Address:
Facility Contact: Title:.
Onsite Representative- . 3 err T� i eC` Integrator.
Phone No:
Certified Operator.-__-----. .... . W Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude • 0` �69 Longitude • 4 �u
[:Holdlinel�'6�& /,Edwin= E
Number 4Iagooas -
IF
Discbarges & Stream Impacts
I- Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated au ❑ 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 gallmin?
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?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure b
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
12112103 Coped

Fadlity,Number: QS — } Date of Inspection
5. Ave 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
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? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structu ms require maintenancerimprovement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ❑ No
elevation marldngs?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need mainteuancehmprovement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11. is there evidence of over application? if yes, check the appropriate box 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) Ibis facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to disclarge 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.
❑ Feld Copy ❑ Final Notes
Raspc,w�:. +o DSt� re�recra� lrsrt �;I►+iGcr IS-IDj '78 -90 , 83-14� 75-11, 4.0j
1$�10 �5�{� ©••A4, 2Re•L �r,.tig , �'I•e c2Grr�g �iar ��e 8 a sS 14•1Oetc
A4+tUk &I I-:V /oy j jjQ wef+aUe acres S Z.96 ac . .4 S Alec
01 re 5.> lie& i, `tie Ov&,c
�PS.�; . A�r.a • `T-i es,v:� e_C
L-11;0 RL4 :«':
t3P 4-0 reSA-
am eL-k- _ tLe Ge�Tra[ p [�-� Ce—
ReviewerAnspector Name 4
ReviewerAnspector Signature:
r7n7mq
I��
rnnfinvAi

Facility Number: 8 j — Date of Inspection lv
R "aired Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WLIP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) . ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ❑ No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ❑ No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewfmspecdon with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No
24. Were any additional problems noted which- cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) ❑ Yes ❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Foam ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
❑ No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
5 k d-L+rt A 1.a.rc a..ti a rc-o r ua a_ s VKA-A e "% �'r os ra...+.vt� r
Ate c-fo-P, -VAe +a+nl P" C" 14,,s
alp . For sol6ea-.&s ,4(-e. PA4 -., i68L 6 4 I-C.
OttCe eer-=b� " Sl{.CC'";��r►ti.S , i e
-4t,e T fas 1b/o�c. faD4)b8 Ala/ac.. Jr," tea soY �es.
T1-e IKt \6 aPQ[;,4 4-m pull #t'$ woUlJL le. w-ttki A4-4- �6& j,
t• a t-eTdt S. W e M- vim} CL IJ
10115lq Ole—
44r. Tf- a,- 5�v+wrrd �e+.� ��« P� WAS yHar.•�gEd` 0.tGaraki vIt '� �^�
Z /y-5 t - t4.e— re c el a-c� d.A-- v-PoLa A v 1.a"• •
0� a(e / o /{ 0 4 , ,,, L, : �.f,. c a �c PA V3 atiltr,,,,a.,., �e -Grs*�'� ADO 1 �
+0 1�3 Jb,/a,. &&. s P_A Of-f -tom. Gri q � wai 'Akewo✓ "C e If `a rt_.
o.r1Q_r *TF1 �ca�:w• of PAN 61 owly. 16 i /me—) vtof 43 ib !qc .
�S-t1 �S�S re L"CLS a
-t - �� d r+�..�} $ atv�c5t�rk , wti►: e-L. ar ecvr+A -Ke see -2-
-Ca r "A of ..� n err a'_4-1 r"A V o C.cry r -(�c a �-�_ w a riG+ �o c.o r r e
12112103 t

Facility Number: 6'6 _ Date of inspection 14 b O
Required Records & Documents
• 21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WIT, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
27. Did Reviewer/fnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP7
❑ Yes
❑ No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey?
❑ Yes
❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit_ You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
_-5�'�
✓ TA5 Noy �°� +b �,les S� po ac Ovv_' "04
/0/16-/Vq for- u1( 12 �rrr �s�� aA� iNCQcre�f WA54-0- _4,et ,le .
For arms nUyvx e-reA q8f10 ���5`�(a� �3-j'l(0-+A-+1), �-:pS:f'{
S rejve%-AeA cop'.e-c of ic-r:���;csr- r-e'Ga"IS a—*. pla.'s rt.'A
if-e- Fay e~-[V_.j' 41e a6 c-e~ 4 c-
71e. S 910 `i 8b -0 7 D7, a 11-�e � 1' ►^�
o�dtoQ c�SS i S � � .
.. p ViQ cla - o e%,t& e-4+
ZZ5- C-1 rev.., Sk -
Fae�{e�ille N[_ 2610 -SOy 3
I.Zfl2 03

4 state of North Carolina
• Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Fayetteville Regional Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Secretary
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
September 14, 2004
_graig Westerbeek
PO Box 759
Rose Hill, North Carolina 28458
SUBJECT: Operation Review Notice of Referral for
Farm 7574
Facility Number 83-7
Scotland County
Dear Mr. Westerbeek,
RECEIVED
SEP 14 2004
rN-i~a*TUU-EREGOML olfItE
On August 25, 2004, an operation review was conducted of Farm 7574, facility number 83-7,
in Scotland County. This review, undertaken in accordance with G.S. 143-215-10D, is one of
two routine site visits scheduled for all subject animal operations in 2004. Staff from the
Division of Water Quality will conduct a separate compliance inspection.
During the operation review, the following item was noted:
• On pull #12 — 4.20 acres —the wrong waste sample was used causing 61.4� p lui ds Ut
nitrogen per acre to be applied to the small grain crop. The waste plan only allows 50
pounds per acre. 1(,`7o Qvex- °`P " J-&-
It was for this reason that your operation was referred to the Division of Water Quality for
further investigation. G.S. 143-215.10E requires staff from the Division of Soil and Water
Conservation to notify the Division of Water Quality and the owner/operator of these observed
violations.
A copy of the operation review report is enclosed for your information. Site findings and
recommended corrective actions as discussed are noted in the comment sections_
27.5 Greeri Street, Suite 714 1 Systel BId. rayeitevdle, NorUi Carolina 28301-5043 Telephone [phone] i
FAX!:!t1-486-0707 An Equal OpportunityA(lirmative Action Employer

Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
• Division of Soil and Water Conservation
• ' O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number $3 - Date: 25104 Time: 8:45 Time On Farm: 75 FRO
Farm Name 7574
County Scotland
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address PO Box 759 Rose Hill NC 28458
Onsite
Representative Jerry Trier _ Integrator Murphy Brown
Type Of Visit Purpose Of Visit
® Operation Review
❑ Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
❑ Technical Assistance
❑ Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Q Routine
Q Response to DWQ/DENR referral
O Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
O Response to complaint/local referral
Q Requested by producer/integrator
O Follow-up
O Emergency
Q Other...
Design Current Design Current
t;apacn ropuiauon
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
® Farrow to Finish 1200
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2, is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes N no
❑ yes N no
ID yes N no
N yes ❑ no
❑ Yes ® no
❑yes Nno
5tructurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
IdentifierIF
Level (Inches) 44
CROP TYPES Coastal Bermuda -hay Small grain k1falfa
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES FuB
Ly
GoA
FaA
WaB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03l10/03
❑ Other
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands?
2, is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the waste structure (large trees,
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure?
❑ yes N no
❑ yes N no
ID yes N no
N yes ❑ no
❑ Yes ® no
❑yes Nno
5tructurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
IdentifierIF
Level (Inches) 44
CROP TYPES Coastal Bermuda -hay Small grain k1falfa
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES FuB
Ly
GoA
FaA
WaB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03l10/03

• Facility Number 83 - 7 Date:
8/25/04
PARAMETER
Q No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
El 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Man Revision or Amendment
®
❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer
❑
❑
❑ 12_ Waste structure integrity compromised
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
El
El
El 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
❑
N 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs_
❑
❑
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30, 2H.0200 re -certification
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
N 17. Deficient irrigation records
❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis
33. Organizelcomputerization of records
Ci
❑
❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis
N 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge remavai/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/cal ibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irrigation Calibration
❑
❑
❑ Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
❑
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
❑
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
❑
46. Wettable Acre Determination
1
47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks
L}
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
2,
49. Drainage work/evaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsoiling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5.
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6.
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 83 - Date: 1 8/25104
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST rent AllenIF-
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 9114104 Entered By: Trent Allen
3 03/10103

.Murphy -Brown, LLC 07/07/2004 P.O. Box 856
Warsaw, NC 28398
NUTRIENT UTILIZATION PLAN
Grower(s):
Farm Name:
Farm
Murphy -Brown, LLC
7574
5cotaina
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish 1200
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Storage Structure:
Storage Period:
Application Method:
Anaerobic Lagoon
>180 days
Irrigation
The waste from your animal facility must be land applied at a specified rate to prevent pollution
of surface water and/or groundwater. The plant nutrients in the animal waste should be used
to reduce the amount of commercial fertilizer required for the crops in the fields where the waste
is to be applied.
This waste utilization plan uses nitrogen as the limiting nutrient. Waste should be analyzed
before each application cycle. Annual soil tests are strongly encouraged so that all plant
nutrients can be balanced for realistic yields of the crop to be grown.
Several factors are important in implementing your waste utilization plan in order to maximize
the fertilizer value of the waste and to ensure that it is applied in an environmentally safe manner:
1. Always apply waste based on the needs of the crop to be grown and the nutrient
content of the waste. Do not apply more nitrogen than the crop can utilize.
2. ' Soil types are important as they have different infiltration rates, leaching potentials,
cation exchange capacities, and available water holding capacities.
3. Normally waste shall be applied to land eroding at less than 5 tons per acre per
year. Waste may be applied to land eroding at 5 or more tons per acre annually, but
less than 10 tons per acre per year providing that adequate filter strips are established.
4. Do not apply waste on saturated soils, when it is raining, or when the surface is frozen.
Either of these conditions may result in runoff to surface waters which is not allowed
under DWQ regulations_
5. Wind conditions should also be considered to avoid drift and downwind odor
problems.
6. To maximize the value of the nutrients for crop production and to reduce the potential
for pollution, the waste should be applied to a growing crop or applied not more than
30 days prior to planting a crop or forages breaking dormancy. Injecting the waste or
disking will conserve nutrients and reduce odor problems.
1 of 8

This plan is based on the waste application method shown above. If you choose to change
methods in the future, you need to revise this plan. Nutrient levels for different application
methods are not the same.
The estimated acres needed to apply the animal waste is based on typical nutrient content
for this type of facility. In some cases you may want to have plant analysis made, which could
allow additional waste to be applied. Provisions shall be made for the area receiving waste to
be flexible so as to accommodate changing waste analysis content and crop type. Lime must
be applied to maintain pH in the optimum range for specific crop production.
This waste utilization plan, if carried out, meets the requirements for compliance with 15A NCAC
2H .0217 adopted by the Environmental Management Commission.
AMOUNT OF WASTE PRODUCED PER YEAR ( gallons, A tons, etc.):
Capacity Type Waste Produced per Animal Total
Farrow to Wean
3212 gal/yr
gallyr
Farrow to Feeder
4015 gallyr
gallyr
1200
Farrow to Finish
10585 gal/yr
12,702,000 gallyr
Wean to Feeder
223 gallyr
gallyr
Feeder to Finish
986 gall r
gallyr
Total 12,702,000 gallyr
AMOUNT OF PLANT AVAILABLE NITROGEN PRODUCED PER YEAR (Ibs
Capacity Type Nitrogen Produced per Animal Total
Farrow to Wean
5.4 Ibs/yr
Ibslyr
Farrow to Feeder
6.5 Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
1200
Farrow to Finish
26 Ibs/yr
31,200 Ibs/yr
Wean to Feeder
0.48 Ibs/yr
Ibs/yr
Feeder to Finish
2.3 Ibsl r
Ibs/yr
Total 31,200 I bstyr
Applying the above amount of waste is a big job. You should plan time and have appropriate
equipment to apply the waste in a timely manner.
LAND UTILIZATION SUMMARIt
The following table describes the nutrient balance and land utilization rate for this facility
Note that the Nitrogen Balance for Crops indicates the ratio of the amount of nitrogen produced
on this facility to the amount of nitrogen that the crops under irrigation may uptake and utilize
in the normal growing season.
Total Irrigated Acreage: 106.3
Total N Required 1 st Year: 33647.5
Total N Required 2nd Year: 0
Average Annual Nitrogen Requirement of Crops 33,647.50
Total Nitrogen Produced by Farm 31,200.00
Nitrogen Balance for Crops: (2,447.50)
The following table describes the specifications of the hydrants and fields that contain the crops
designated for utilization of the nitrogen produced on this facility_ This chart describes the size,
soil characteristics, and uptake rate for each crop in the specified crop rotation schedule for this
facility.
2 of 8

Reception Area Specifications
Tract Field Irrigated Soil 1st Crop Time to 1st Crop 1st Crop Lbs NlAc Lbs N Total We N
Acreage Type Code Apply Yield Ibs NlUnit Residual fAc Utilized
2nd Crop Time to 2nd Crop 2nd Crop Lbs NlAc Lbs N Total Ibs N
Code Apply Yield Ibs NlUnit Residual /Ac Utilized
Total
JLbsN/Acj
I Total Ibs N
Utilized
548
1
6.7
Eustis
C
Mar -Set
4.0
50
200
1340
L
Se t-A r
1
50
50
335
250
1675
2
5.3
Eustis
C
Mar -Set
4,0
50
200
1060
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
60
265
250
1325
3
6.7
Eustis
C
Mar -Set
4.0
50
200
1340
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
335
250
1675
4
3.9
Eustis
C
Mar -Se 1
4.0
50
200
780
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
195
250
975
5
2.6
Eustis
C
Mar -Sat
4.0
50
200
520
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
130
250
650
6 1
2.9
Lynchburg
C
Mar -Set
5.5
50
275
797.5
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
145
325
942.5
7A 1
4.8
Wa ram
C
Mar -Sept
5.5
50
1 275
1320
L
Sept -Apr
1
1 50
1 50
240
1 325
1560
7B 1
5.5
Goldsboro
C
Mar -Set
6.5
50
325
1787.5
L
Sept -Apr
1
1 50
50
275
1 375
2062.5
BA
4.5
Wa ram
C
Mar -Set
5.5
50
275
1237.5
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
225
325
1462.5
88
5.4
Goldsboro
C
Mar -Set
6.5
50
325
1755
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
270
375
2025
9
1.9
Goldsboro
C
Mar -Set
6.5
50
325
617.5
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
95
375
712.5
10
3.3
Wa ram
C
MarSe 1
5.5
50
275
907.5
L
Sept -Apr,
1
50
50
165
325
1072,5
11A
5.7
Wa ram
C
Mar -Set
5.5
50
275
1567.5
L
Se t-A r
1
50
50
285
325
1852.5
f1B
5.9
Wa rem
C
Mar -Set
5.5
1 50
275
1622.5
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
295
325
1917.5
12A
4.2
Wa ram
C
Mar -Set
5.5
50
1 275
1155
L
Sept -Apr
1 1
50
I
5o
210
325
1365
129
6
Faceville
C
Mar -Sept
BA
50
300
1800
L
Soot -Apr
1 1
50
1
50 1
300
350
2100
13
6.7
Lynchburg
C
MarSe 1
5.5
50
275
1842.5
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
335
325
2177.5
14A
5A
Marlboro
Alfalfa
Mar -Set
5.0
50
250
1350
L
Se t-A r
1
50
50
270
300
1620
17
5.5
We ram
C
Mar -Sat
5.5
50
275
1512.5
L
Sa t-A r
1
50
50
275
325
1787.5
18A
6.7
Faceville
C
Mar -Set
6.0
50
300
2010
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
335
350
2345
18B
6.7
Faceville
C
Mar -Set
6.0
50
300
2010
L
Sept -Apr
1
50
50
335
350
2345
Totals; 106.3 28232.6 $315 33647.5
3(a) of 8

This plan does not include commercial fertilizer. The farm should produce adequate plant
available nitrogen to satisfy the requirements of the crops listed above_
The applicator is cautioned that P and K may be over applied while meeting the N requirements.
In the future, regulations may require farmers in some parts of North Carolina to have a nutrient
management plan that addresses all nutrients_ This plan only addresses nitrogen.
In interplanted fields ( i.e. small grain, etc, interseeded in bermuda), forage must be removed
through grazing, hay, and/or silage. Where grazing, plants should be grazed when they
reach a height of six to nine inches. Cattle should be removed when plants are grazed to a
height of four inches. In fields where small grain, etc, is to be removed for hay or silage, care
should be exercised not to let small grain reach maturity, especially late in the season (i.e.
April or May). Shading may result if small grain gets too high and this will definately interfere
with stand of bermudagrass. This loss of stand will result in reduced yields and less nitrogen
being utilized. Rather than cutting small grain for hay or silage just before heading as is
the normal situation, you are encouraged to cut the small grain earlier. You may want to
consider harvesting hay or silage two to three times during the season, depending on the
time small grain is planted in the fall.
The ideal time to interplant small grain, etc, is late September or early October. Drilling is
recommended over broadcasting. Bermudagrass should be grazed or cut to a height of
about two inches before drilling for best results.
CROP CODE LEGEND
Crop Code
Crop
Lbs N utilized / unit yield
A
Barley
1.6 lbs N 1 bushel
B
Hybrid Bermudagrass - Grazed
50 lbs N / ton
tv C
Hybrid Bermudagrass - Hay
50 lbs N / ton
D
Corn - Grain
1.25 lbs N / bushel
E
Corn - Silage
12 lbs N / ton
F
Cotton
0.12 lbs N / lbs lint
G
Fescue - Grazed
50 lbs N / ton
H
Fescue- Hay
50 lbs N / ton
I
Oats
1.3 lbs N / bushel
J
Rye
2.4 lbs N / bushel
K
Small Grain - Grazed
50 lbs N / acre
iF L
Small Grain - Hay
50 lbs N / acre
M
Grain Sorghum
2.5 lbs N / cwt
N
Wheat
2.4 lbs N 1 bushel
O
Soybean
4.0 lbs N 1 bushel
P
Pine Trees
40 lbs N / acre / yr
Acres shown in the preceding table are considered to be the usable acres excluding
required buffers, filter strips along ditches, odd areas unable to be irrigated, and perimeter areas
not receiving full application rates due to equipment limitations_ Actual total acres in the fields
listed may, and most likely will be, more than the acres shown in the tables.
See attached map showing the fields to be used for the utilization of animal waste.
4of8

SLUDGE APPLICATION:
The following table describes the annual nitrogen accumulation rate per animal
in the lagoon sludge
Farm Specifications PAN r/animal Faun Totaltyr
Farrow to Wean 0.84
Farrow to Feeder 1
1200 Farrow to Finish 4.1 4920
Wean to Feeder 0.072
Feeder to Finish 0.36
The waste utilization plan must contain provisions for periodic land application of sludge at
agronomic rates. The sludge will be nutrient rich and will require precautionary measures to
prevent over application of nutrients or other elements. Your production facility will produce
approximately 4920 pounds of plant available nitrogen per year will accumulate in the lagoon
sludge based on the rates of accumulation listed above.
If you remove the sludge every 5 years, you will have approximately 24600 pounds of plant
available nitrogen to utilize. Assuming you apply this PAN to hybrid bermuda grass hayland at the
rate of 300 pounds of nitrogen per acre, you will need 82 acreas of land. If you apply the sludge
to com at a rate of 125 pounds per acre, you will need 196.8 acres of land. Please note that these
are only estimates of the PAN produced and the land required to utilize that PAN. Actual values
may only be determined by sampling the sludge for plant available nitrogen content prior to application
Actual utilization rates will vary with soil type, crop, and realistic yield expectations for the specific
application fields designated for sludge application at time of removal.
APPLICATION OF WASTE BY IRRIGATION:
The irrigation application rate should not exceed the intake rate of the soil at the time of irrigation
such that runoff or ponding occurs. This rate is limited by initial soil moisture content, soil
structure, soil texture, water droplet size, and organic solids. The application amount should not
exceed the available water holding capacity of the soil at the time of irrigation nor should the
plant available nitrogen applied exceed the nitrogen needs of the crop.
If surface irrigation is the method of land application for this plan, it is the responsibility of the
producer and irrigation designer to ensure that an irrigation system is installed to properly
irrigate the acres shown in the preceding table. Failure to apply the recommended rates and
amounts of nitrogen shown in the tables may make this plan invalid.
'This is the maximum application amount allowed for the soil assuming the amount
of nitrogen allowed for the crop is not over applied. In many situations, the application
amount shown cannot be applied because of the nitrogen limitation. The maximum
application amount shown can be applied under optimum soil conditions.
Your facility is designed for >180 days of temporary storage and the temporary storage must
be removed on the average of once every 6 months. In no instance should the volume of the
waste stored in your structure be within the 25 year 24 hour storm storage or one foot of
freeboard except in the event of the 25 year 24 hour storm.
It is the responsibility of the producer and waste applicator to ensure that the spreader equipment
is operated properly to apply the correct rates to the acres shown in the tables. Failure to apply
the recommended rates and amounts of nitrogen shown in the tables may make this plan invalid.
Call your technical specialist after you receive the waste analysis report for assistance in
determining the amount of waste per acre and the proper application prior to applying the waste.
5of8

Application Rate Guide
The following is provided as a guide for establishing application rates and amounts.
Soil
Application Rate
Application Amount
Tract Hydrant
Type
Crop
in/hr
* inches
1
Eustis
C
0.4
1
2
Eustis
C
. 0.4
1
3
Eustis
C
0.4
1
4
Eustis
C
0.4
1
5
Eustis
C
0.4
1
6
Lynchburg
C
0.65
1
7A
Wagram
C
0.6
1
#REF! 7B
Goldsboro
C
0.4
1
8A
Wagram
C
0.6
1
8B
Goldsboro
C
0.4
1
9
Goldsboro
C
0.4
1
10
Wagram
C
0.6
1
11A
Wagram
C
0.6
1
11 B
Wagram
C
0.6
1
12A
Wagram
C
0.6
1
12B
Faceville
C
0.35
1
13
Lynchburg
C
0.65
1
14A
Marlboro
Alfalfa
0.65
1
17
Wagram
C
0.6
1
18A
Faceville
C
0.35
1
18B
Faceville
C
0.35
1
6of8

NUTRIENT UTILIZATION PLAN CERTIFICATION
Name of Farm: 7574
Owner. Murphy -Brown, LLC
Manager:
Owner/Manager Agreement:
Ilwe understand and will follow and implement the specifications and the operation and
maintenance procedures established in the approved animal waste nutrient management
plan for the farm named above. Ilwe know that any expansion to the existing design capacity
of the waste treatment andlor storage system, or construction of new facilities, will require a
new nutrient management plan and a new certification to be submitted to DWQ before the new
animals are stocked.
Itwe understand that I must own or have access to equipment, primarily irrigation equipment,
to land apply the animal waste described in this nutrient management plan. This equipment
must be available at the appropriate pumping time such that no discharge occurs from the lagoon
in the event of a 25 year 24 hour storm. I also certify that the waste will be applied on the land
according to this plan at the appropriate times and at rates which produce no runoff.
This plan will be filed on site at the farm office and at the office of the local Soil and Water
Conservation District and will be available for review by NCDWQ upon request.
Name of Facility Owner: - Murphy -Brown, LLC
Signature:
Date
Name of Manager (if different from owner):
Signature: /i' ! �//14�I a— 0A
Date
Name of Technical Specialist:
Dawn Williamson
Affiliation: _
Murphy -Brown, LLC.
Address:
_
2822 Hwy 24 West, PO Drawer 856
Warsaw, NC 28398
Telephone:
[phone]
Signature:
Date
8of8

-
�,`�,_, ray- tii.-� _- Y �r _ ��} +-x; n' v.�: "�k-M �F" .i... •..s--+.s�Ea�. -_ m "`�,re-.,c,„r,+�x�'"r� � �+'�"L"" �'g s
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: l Time: i
Facility Number t
\oi O erational Beltµ" Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Re.istered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: CeArd-,., ( 22ac- n C-_ _ Count•: —Q i,
Owner Name: (,<rr,a Phone No: (o
[ailing Address: _ (3-C3 t l3 4►C — g� _ 1� 7cx1~Sc�k4 h� . C 2.93ig
F261iry Contact: -LACA- r' 4CM e%Y,6Ct CLeT Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: m
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator
Operator Certification Number: 1 7 - �' So
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' z - Longitude • 1
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Ca acitf Population Cattle Ca acity Poriulation
❑ '% can to Feeder ❑ Laver F—
ElEl Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Laver Non -Dairy
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
® Farrow to Finish 12,00 Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
Drains Present
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is anv discharge observed from any par: of the operation?
Discharrye oriQinated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Sprav Field ❑ Other
a. If dischanz� is obsen'ed. was the conveyance man-made?
JILJ Lagoon Area JLJ Sprav Field Area
ent System
❑ Yes 1�1 No
El Yes El No
b- if discharge is obsen-ed. did it reach Water of the State? (if yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed- what is the estimated flow in eal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a IaQoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes U No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? El 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
Wa-sit
je Collection 8 Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes [�JNo
Structure 1 Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inebes):
03103101 Z Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes Q No
❑ Yes Q9 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes �j No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes El No
❑Yes ❑No
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated ran the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16_ Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
MNo
Reouired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
&No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
Qa No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
�9No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
allo
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
E4No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
�No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
W No
24_
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
F�J No
25_
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
EZ] No
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #f): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other commeuts.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
k Soli SG`rhPka c it L--A iOra T/03
hL (G oa jy-,r-Lj, L',v � t j WLGrCGh t- t'�1c4�r a003 O1L Si,n G2 .
(!
(}�
Reviewer/Inspector Name k/ i
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: rv—,r — Date: �7
05103101 Continued

Facility- Number: LR— Date of Inspcctirin
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atior below
® Yes
❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
l
27.
Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
❑ Yes
[5D No
28.
Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation. asphalt.
❑ Yes
No
roads. building structure. and/or public property)
29.
Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
❑ Yes
No
30.
Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s). inoperable shutters. etc.)
❑ Yes
No
31.
Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
❑ Yes
No
32.
Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
Yes
Q No
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
r
05103101

�. � .'�3•`—•s s..�.f''�s, 7y' r �,.i`-� +fi�„_�, Se-+-�'t �"r '°rc S� Y :..e' � �y .-y t � +w
-���� L �DtviEston of Water Qaaltty
' O Diotsian of Stt>il and Water Con rvab"ioa�.z
> w
Y .� Oth�AgenCy - - - •�
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit ®Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Vkit: .2 4 0 Time: � = 3
Facility• lumber 3
lot Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally- Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: C acne(Vg lk!- ei Len, W L,�24 Count-: cc,—�i c:,, '
Owner -Name: _ C rsrn (y, Phone No: - 5 6.3 -
Mailing Address: O _ , 4 1j "S u] A C-- 51"
Facility Contact: 2t,nk�2 r ,'(L n C Title: 1- 43 h6 Phone No:
Onsite Representative: rl, Integrator: C•c r�rn( L'C
Certified Operator: . c>~c - — Operator Certification lumber: , 24, o3 `t
Location of Farm:
Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �' Longitude
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Ca acih Population Poultry- Ca acit Population Cattle Capacity Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Laver ❑ airy
❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Laver ❑ ]von -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
Farrow- to Finish j .100 Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Dumber of Lagoons 0 ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ S ray Field area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 0M No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed, from any part of the operation?
Discharge oria-irated at: El Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b_ if discharge is observed, did it reach VNater of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed what is the estimated flow in aal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system`' (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any pan of the operation.)
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacit}, (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): I �.
05103101
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
3)No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: ? 3 — T
Date of Inspection `
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Avolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
12. Crop type
❑ Yes iD No
❑ Yes 3No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes J�LNo
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
[54 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
W No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
© No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(icl WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
G1 No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
,® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
91 No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23_
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
U! No
24,
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question ff): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): [j Field Copv ❑ Final Notes
H
Reviewer/Inspector ector Name ' ry_, - L _
P I if '(fit,-- ��� K�
Reviewer/]nspector Signature: Date: ;2 p
O5103101 i Continued

Facility \umber: — Date of Inspection -3
Odor Issues
25. 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 am' dead animals not disposed of properly within 2» 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)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. W*ere 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.)
l . Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
3?. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent temporary caVer?
Additional Comments and/or Drawinws:
❑ Yes � Na
❑ Yes 711 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes `Fj3 No
❑ Yes [ 9 No
❑ )-es E& No
❑ Yes [� No
05103101

t
information contained in this database is from non agency sources and is considered unconfirmed.
Animal Operation Telephone Log
DWQ Facility Number
Farm Name
Caller's Name
Caller's Phone #
Access to Farm
83 —0
7574
Rusty Collins
® Reporting O Complaint
Farm Accessible
from main road 10 Yes O No
,Animal l'opulation
Confined
Depop
Feed Available
Mortality
O Yes O No
O Yes O No
O Yes O No
O Yes O No
Sprav Arailabilitv
Pumping
Equipment O Yes O No
Available
Fields 10 Yes O No
Date
Time
Control Number
Region
La goon Questions
Breached
O Yes O No
Inundated
O Yes O No
Overtopped
O Yes O No
Water on
O Yes O No
Outside Wall
Dike Conditions
10 Yes O No
5/28/2003
8:15
2970
FRO
Freeboard Level
Freeboard
Plan Due Date Date Plan Date Freeboard
Inches
(? equals blank) Received Level OK
Lagoonl 16"
5/30/2003
Lagoonl
Lagoon3
L�
Lagoon4
Lagoons
Lagoon6
�
Mr. Collins stated that Dawn Williamson would be sending in the POA for this farm.
...............................................................................................................................................................................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
person taking call Larry tiaxley
Comments2

MRY.30.2003 9:24RM CARROLL'S FOODS h0.739 P.14
-zRIO
PLAN OF ACTION(Poa) FOR HIGH FREF-BOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
Facility Number: 83-7 County; Scotland
Facility Name: Farm 7574
Certified Operator Name: �j - `perator Number: 2603q
i. Current liquid level(s) in inches as measured from the current liquid level in the lagoon to the
lowest point on the top of the clam for lagoons without spillways; and from the current liquid level
in the lagoon to the bottom of the spillway for lagoons with spillways.
Lagoon t Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3 Lagoon 4 Lagoon 5
Lagoon Name/ID: 7574
Splilway(Y or N): N
Level(inches): 16
2. Check all applicable Items
Liquid level is within the designed structural freeboard elevations of one or more structures.
Five and 30 day Plans of Action are attached. Hydraulic and agronomic balances are
within acceptable ranges.
X Liquid level is within the 25 year 24 hour storm elevations for one or more structures. A
30 flay Plan of Action is attached. Agronomic balance is within acceptable range.
Waste Is to be pumped and hauled to off site locations. 13olume and PAN content of waste
to be pumped and hauled Is refleeW In section III tables. Included within this plan is a list
of the proposed sites with related facility numbers, number of acres and receiving c rnp
information. Contact and secure approval from the DWO prior to transfer of waste to a site
not covered in the facilVE; CAMP.
Operation Will be partially or fully depopulated.
'Attach a complete schedule with corresponding animal units and dates fro depopulation
*if animals are to be moved to another permitted facnity, provide facility number, lagoon
freeboard levels and herd population for the receiving facility
3. Earliest possible date to begin land application of waste: S-130163
I hereby certify that 1 Have reviewed the information listed above and included within the
attached Plan of Action, and to the best of my knowledge and ability, the information is
accurate and correct,
JGUSI-D�F/AS / utx y &W4 Phone: �qk) XG —5G37
'Facility OwneriManager(print)
4at -- &Lee� Date: _ 5-/30J03
Fact ty owner/Manager (signature)

MY.30.2003 9.24AM CARROLL'S FOODS
NO.739 P.15
PLAN OF ACTION (POA) FOR HIGH FREF-BOARD AT ANIMAL FACILITIES
30 DAY DRAW DOWN PERIOD
I, TOTAL PAN TO DIE LAND APPLIED PER WASTE STRUCTURE
I. Structure Name/Identifier (ID): 7574
2, Current liquid volume in 25 yr.124 hr. storm storage & structural freeboard
a. current liquid level according to marker
b. designed 25 yr.124 hr. storm $ structural freeboard
c, line b - line a (inches in red zone) =
d, top of dike surface area according to design
(area at below structural freeboard elevation)
e, line ell x line d x 7.48 gallons/fO
3. Projected volume of waste liquid produced during draw down period
f, temporary storage period according to structural design
16.0 inches
19.01 inches
3.0 inches
215275 fe
402564 gallons
180 days
g. volume of waste produced according to structural design 1 4152481 ft3
h. current herd # 12DD certified herd # 1200
actual waste produced ^ current herd ,# x line g 415248 ft'
certified herd #
i. volume of wash water according to structural design
j, excess rainfall over evaporation according to design
R. (lines h + i t j) x 7.48 x 30 days/line f--
4. Total PAN to be land applied during draw down period
1. current waste analysis dated I 04/17/2003
m. ({lines e t k)11000) x line I =
REPEAT SECTION 1 FOR EACH WASTE STRUCTURE ON SITE.
(Click on the next Structure tab shown below)
0 ft,
128333 ft3
6776m gallons
2.OD Ibs/l000 gal.
2160.6 lbs. PAN
PoA (30 Day) 2121 /00

JVY.30.2003 9:25AM CARROLL'S FOODS
NO.739 P.16
II. TOTAL POUNDS OF PAN STORED WITHIN STRUCTURAL FREEBOARD ANWOR 23 YRJ24
HR. STORM STORAGE ELEVATIONS IN ALL WASTE STRUCTURES FOR FACILITY
1. Structure ID: 7574
line m =
2160.5 lb PAN
2. SVudure ID:
line m =
lb PAN
3. Structure ID:
line m =
lb PAN
4, Structure IP:
line rn =
-lb PAN
5, Structure ID:
line m =
lb PAN
6. Structure ID:
line m =
Ib PAN
n. lines I +2+3+4+5+6= 2160.5 lb PAN
Ill. TOTAL PAN BALANCE REMAINING FOR AVAIL A13L.E CROPS DURING 30 DAY DRAW OOWP
PERroo_ ea uQT LIST FIELnn Tn w"ir-i4 PAN caNNnT RF; APPLIFn nURING THIS 30 DAY PERIOD
o. tract #
p. field #
q. crap
r. acres
s. mmalrfg 1RR
2 PAN halarom
flwo a)
t TOTAL PAN
aALANM FOR
FIELD (@s.)
u. appllcatlan wk4m'
548
1 2.3.4,& 5
Bermuda Hay
25.20
50,00
1260.0
Mar -Oct
548
10B & 11
Bermuda Hay
14.90
50.00
745.0
Mar -Oct
548
12A, 17 &13
Bermuda Hay
12.80
50.00
640.0
Mar -Oct
'State wrrent crop ending application Gate or next crop appllcation beginning date for available
receiving crops during 30 day draw down period.
v. Total PAN available for all fields (sum of column t) r- 2645.0 lb. PAN
N. FACILITYS PoA OVERALL PAN BALANCE
w. 'Total PAN to be land applied (line n from section II) = 2160.5 lb. PAN
PoA (30 Day) 2/21100

.MAY.30.2003 9.25AM CARROLL'S FOODS HO.739 P_17
x. Crop's remaining PAN balance (line v from section III) _
y. Overall PAN balance (w - x) =
2645.0 lb. PAN
-485 lb. PAN
une Y must show as a deficit. If line X does not show as a deficit fist course of action here Including pump and
haul, depopulation, herd reduction, etc. Fop pump & Maul and herd reduction options, recalculate new PAN
based on new information, tf new fields am to be included as an option for lowering lagoon level, add these
fields to the PAN balance table and recalculate the overall PAN balance. If animal waste is to be hauled to
another permitted facility, provide Information regarding the herd population and lagoon freeboard levels at the
Irrigation onto existing spray fields will continue as weather and
available for pumping if needed.
available PAN is greater than 50 lbs/acre,
s permit. Additional land Is
PoA (30 pay) 2121100

Facility Number
Date of Visit: E Q Time:
7
Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
N Permitted W Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: e,� �/ 7 County: }I
Owner Name: -�'" � �"�� Phone No: � /d a.P.3 —3
Mailing Address: �• f-D�X�.r.�l�&C _ 21py
a
Facility Contact: Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: 1 Integrator:
Certified Operator: / Z jz c—� Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude a =' u Longitude '
Design
Current Design Current Design Current =
Swine Capacity
Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca aeity Po ulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
__ ❑ Layer I ❑ Dairy
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer I I ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Other
13 Farrow to Finish /zGf%
IzoG Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Total SSLW
Number, of Lagoons
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area❑ S ray Field Area
�Pondsl Solid Traps
�Holdttg
. ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
.
Discharge & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes EKNo
Discharge originated at: ❑ Laizoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes Rt No
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes JgNo
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in Val/min'
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes UNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes KNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Inj No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes [rNo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): .�
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: S3 — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes [:]No
(If any of questions 4-6was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste ADnlication
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
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 or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ichemists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigatto freeboar aste analysis & soil sample reports)
eports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes XNo
N Yes ARKelexe
❑ Yes tRNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes 1QNo
❑ Yes [2[No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes 10 No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situundon& (use additional pages as necessary): ❑Field Copy FFinal Notes
,❑
�/ / 'J)sfw�.�'1'1
/�• i� £ C.�%//l1/�,✓r i s ¢0 61� /x 4'f;/
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: % 2 S a
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: Dale of Inspection G�
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor 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)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes Cl No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
WYes ❑ No
05163101

u�
Type of Visit Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit a Routine O Complaint Q Follow up Q Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
17
Facility Number Date of Visit: 1 '0 Time:
Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold
0 Permitted Q Ceer]tfiied ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or
or AWThrold:Farm Name: <5� Counh:.......1�.{�.1...................................
.........................i�.................................................................................... ....
f J
Owner Name: 0 tr ?! j �b �S Phone No:
f!?......................................................................................... ........................
..... //// 'fin
Facility Contact: ..... ul�"..... �6..(L...w.S...................Title: k.11• . `i j . ..................... Phone No:.................................................
... ............ /
Mailing Address:. .....................................
Onsite Representative:
.................. 1......... Integrator:........ -
Certified Operator:...._St(s.,fy,- ......................Afk,?L_y .............................. Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �• �6 4 Longitude • 4 «
Design Current
Swine Cana©ty Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
)700
Gilts
❑ Boars
'Design Current ammo Cu_ treiat
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Po ulation:Y�
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area
❑ Spray Field Area :_
10 No Liquid Waste Management System
-
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
k
Discharge originated at: []Lagoon [ISpray Field ElOther
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. Dees discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
19No
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
JNo
Structure I Stl'l1Cture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: ....................
Freeboard (inches):
5100
Continued on back

Faci6tyNumber: n-67 Date of Inspection L1= =lJ Printed on: 1/9/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
AN0
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
1
closure plan?
❑ Yes
Q(J No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
f \
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 maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes
No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
�No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
o
tNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN [IHydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
12. Crop type r ni k e°� Ste
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those Ysignated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
(] No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
§4No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
01No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
§�No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
O_No
23. Did Reviewer/]nspector 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 9wo
•yigta igtis ot• deficiencies -were h during Ns.visit: Yoa 0...1...1- ..0..i...
iye Rio #'ui'tbo
corres • deice abaut this visit: - - ........:. ...... ...... . . . ........ .... .
IIvomments {irder to` questii a #} Eliplatn'any_'YES answeas and/or any reco ations or, any. eo
_
tJse-drawings of.facility td=better:eaplain.sitnation& (use`addittoiial pages as tzecescaiy)
r
/49016s -9� "wTS0Pd, ��aS ,,�����,� „� h. zao1, 1) rW /33 �6s
Bw DuzrSel a5eJ /0 /l� ra .`� ,� p nnZoo
/VO o uerr aL11 p /i C,{4r U� o - IM /07 f
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Ck-
Date:

Facility Number: _ Date of inspection
Printed on: 1/4/2001
30_ Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e_ residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes
roads, building structure, and/or public property) ((
31. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes To
32. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or ` j(
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes KNO
33. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes .No
34. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ;RN-0
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit_ You will receive no further correspondence about this visit-
Reviewer/Inspector Name '.._ __ • .�:• , =:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
01/01/01

7kd
CARROLL'S FOOD S, INC.
Box 1767 - 325 McKay Street
{� � Lauri nburg, North Carolina 28353
910/276-0648 FX:910/276-2950
°B 16 2001
February 14, 2001
Mr. Paul Rawls
11 `h District Supervisor
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
Subject: Response to Notice of Violation
Farm 7574 Carroll's Foods
Facility No. 83-07, Scotland County
Dear Mr. Rawls,
After the review ol' Soil and Water and investigating the measurements of the
pulls or fields, we have had a technical specialist rewrite the waste plan for this farm.
The fields in question, 14, 15, and 16, were not included and we do maintain a deficit.
The new plan is in the Laurinburg office as well as in Warsaw.
Waste samples are now being taken at 60-day intervals. OIC designates have
been changed and those changes have been sent to DWQ.
If there are any questions, please contact me at 910-276-5637 or Dawn
Williamson, Technical Specialist in Warsaw, at 910-293-3434.
Sincerelv,
546^
A4�,-Z-
Leslie Stutts
Farming and Environmental Specialist
Laurinburg Division

Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection EM 24 hr. (hh:mm)
r(Permitted © Certified [] Conditionally Certified 13 Registered 0 Not Operation Date Last O ated
Farm Name: rir �?..G..��5... # 7�%� Coanty:......5�1.........................................................
................ ...........................................................C...... .
Owner Name:.............L....... _ Phone No: �752 �?............. ........ ....... ....
Facility Contact: ....... ............................. Title: Ld '^� ...t7.j Phone No:................................... -
'.............
Mailing Address: {..... ..1� Rrt..�.e......�?.. `...... {h1.�7..!�..1r` `J� .... C................... ....r
..._.
OnsiteRepresentative: ............................................................................................. I ............. Integrator :......... ................ ............................................... ......... .....
Certified Operator: --- r_ 1�-�, .�`' Operator Certification Number: .
Location of Farm: f
Latitude ' ° 46 Longitude • ° "
DesCurret - ;'se
Cign DI'DesCurrent e$wine Poultry aace Po u:eCipacCapacity
etniotn ...;'
❑ Wean to Feeder 10 Layer ❑ Dairy :r
[3Feeder to Finish JE1 Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other
Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity �J
❑ Gilts - _
❑ Boars '" „' Total SSLW
_F.
Number of Lagoons r❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Aroma
ram:- _-
Holdii►g Poeisis 1 Soled Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System = i_
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes A 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? (II -yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes 4NO
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 gNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes WNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes IgNo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 21,6
Freeboard (inches): --
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 buck

Facility Number: — 07 1 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on-sitc which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Exce sive Ponding ❑ PAN
12, Crop type , Ir Y 4 0__ `
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those design ted in the Certified A imal Waste
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?
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes WNo
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes No
Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes
ONO
❑ Yes
4 No
❑ Yes
IdNo
❑ Yes
ANo
❑ Yes
�No
❑ Yes
RNo
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 AWMP?
1e yioiaiicjris or deficie cie •were h0te4 d�ririg this:visit; - You v01l•re give Oo fut�ther
corii4onderrce: about this visit. ::: :: :: :
ICRra, �Ba ��od V4 WC!11 rr�ezi f
Pl,« 10-"_ Zjds.
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes P(No
❑ Yes Jallo
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes JX No
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes F[ No
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: c Date: z7' 6b

Facility Number!?-3 --- 7 Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes o
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes R(No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes Wo
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? O.e. broken fan belts, missing or /
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes 1,ref�t No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes O AJQ-
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanenthemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

0 Division oFSbil and Water Conservation =Operation Review-
r24
r
I ivisxon of Steil and Water Conservation -Compliance Inspection = -.
r
DiVision of Water (Quality. - Compliance inspection
?.. •: Other Agency t pC><dtign Review
0 Routine O Complaint Q Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-ug of DSWC review 00ther
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted © Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 13 Registered [3 Not Operational Date Last Operated
'4 75--� Count
FarmName: ..........r.................................................. }':...................... ....... a Y...............................
Owner Name: ............... �r S� s Phone No:.........._.................................._........_.... .......-..........
Facility Contact: ................................................. . Title:..................... . Phone No:............................
MailingAddress: ............................................................................................
�[ %
-� 0OLe 5 .......................
Onsite Representative:..........................................�................ Integrator
Certified Operator:_..... .. Operator Certification Number:
........................................................................................................ ..........................................
Location of Farm:
r............................................................................ ......... - .. ........................ ... ---- .....................................................................................................
�
Latitude • 4 46 Longitude ' 4 14
Design Current
Swine Canaritv Ponnlatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca acit ' Po ulation
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I I[] Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area JEI Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream In_ enacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made'? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If ycs. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the cstimatcd flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'' (If ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge'?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .............. ..... ...... ...... ....................... ... ..........._........... ........ ............ ........................ ..... ............................... .......
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
E 'fts ❑ No
Structure 6
5. Are there any imm to hreats e i grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
3/23199 seepage, etc.)
� � � v �
❑ Yes ❑ No
Continued on back

Ir I.
E3 DSWC Animal- Feedlot Operation Review','
it&Jfisvect 7-
DWG'��hinial Feedlot Overatiows Inspection
18 Routine 0 Comnlaint 0 Follow-up of DWO inspection 0 Follow-uiD of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection 147- 2z 72 71
Facility Number D 7
Time of Inspection I 12-.'4V 124 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status: D Registered �pplied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
❑ CertifiedPermitted or Inspect -ion (includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operational Date Last Operated: . ... . ....
Farm Name: .... . ........ . ....... ...... .... . ...... County:. .... . ..... . . . .... -.-
Land Owner Name:..........._ ....... . ..... Phone .. . . ..... . ..... . . .... _.
Facility Conctact: Title: .. . ..... _. Phone No: . .....
Mailing Address:
. ..... ....
Onsite Representative: ..... Integrator: re0171
Certified Operator:............._ . ..... . Operator Certification Number-__... . ... . ....
Location of Farm: . S
'Ljt5 --..o , ±5
..... fr
. . ............... . . ..... . .....
Latitude Longitude
f�
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
Y uriint=
M gDeSl Current
2
'tPoull '�CafikZ'
ZT "C 6�acjty 'Populationz.:�'? anscitv, PoDulation"L
ffWean to Feeder Layer 10 Da'
0 Feeder to Finish ry
-x�� [3 [I Non -Layer [I Non-Dairyl
[I Farrow to Wean
2 Farrow to Feeder Ma 24",
12c?)
Farrow to Finish
❑ Other
Number,of�Lagoons°/ Holding PondsI0 Subsurface Drains Present
Io Lagoon Ar=eaSpray Field Mal JEI
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at. 0 Lagoon 0 Spray field 0 Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is obsened, did it reach Surface Watee? (If ycs, notify DWQ)
C. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes VNo
0 Yes ��No
[I Yes [I No
[I Yes [I No
[I Yes El No
* Yes WNo
* Yes KNo
El Yes ,KNo
Continued on back

T
Facility Number:.. . —...a.
6.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
7.
Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
No
8.
Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
ANo
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding_Pond$)
9.
Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
Freeboard (fl): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure
..�..' ._ _...._... — _.... ..........�_..... ....
........_
.._.....
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
XNo
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
IrTo
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
PNo
Waste Applicatiqu
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
1Na
f in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DW
� g �
/ \
15.
Crop type V e r N. y
16.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
, 6\No
17.
Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
KNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
19.
Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No
,
21.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
El Yes
1
Epr
Certified Facilities Only
22.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
o
23.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
tNo
24.
Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yeso
Comments (refer to question #)i Explain any YES artswers and/or -any recommendations or any other comments. '
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations: (use additional pages as necessary):
Caw+-p��4�ce_ Q
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Date: 0'*;-1 � - f 7
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
cc: Division of Water Qualio(Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

" State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Fayetteville Regional Office A14j
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ID E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
DMSION OF WATER QUALITY
July 25, 1996
Carroll's Foods, Inc.
116 James Street
Laurinburg, NC 28352
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
Swine Farms
Hoke, Scotland and Richmond Counties
Dear Sir:
On July 2, 1996, an inspection of several animal operations 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 these facilities are in compliance
with 15A NCAC 2H, Part .0217, and that Animal Waste Management is being properly performed.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at (910) 486-
1541 ext. 325.
Sincerely,
Ricky Revels
Environmental Technician IV
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville ��,� FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 910-4$6 1541 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

w Faci4ry Number: g3 - 0 7
Division of Environmental Management
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Visitation Record
Date: -7 : 7- - 9 4
Time: / 3
Ggneral Information;
Farm Name.• it 7 �a v ro // `s Ao _ s County: Sca ff�
Owner Name: Carryd s 6ods, _-,/c— _ Phone No: l q1o> 27 r- 07 77
On Site Representative: Al L a.J 4 Integrator: S Fv d s
Mailing Address: /9z 7-9
Physical Address&ocation: An... t..,t 7 464s. _ Cas �_ a t A-e.3 i &-ems /.Sl, A
'tu/N jcieA cros a' take- 44 e�.l e a-pe' :..+n/ Gn.
jo�/�jnY��(_ -Q.,sf ��.�o_�ry��.,J �iJ S/C /SL-T3 .-d _eY
b rJ -t<< 1 t _
Latitude:
Operation Description: (based on design characteristics)
Tj of Swine No. of Animals Type of Poultry No. of Animals Type of Cattle No. of Animals
Sow 1 20o Etc -F.ej 0 Layer ❑ Dairy
0 Nm=y 0 Non -Layer ❑ Beef
❑ Feeder
OrherType of Livestock Number of Animals:
Number of Lagoons: I (include in the Drawings and Observations the f=board of each lagoon)
Facility Inspection:
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than Ifoot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?:
Is seepage observed from the, lagoon?:
Is erosion observed?:
Is any discharge observed?
❑ Man-made Q Not Man-made
Cover Crop
Does the facility need more acreage for spraying?:
Does the cover crop need improvement?:
( list the crops which need improvement)]
Crop type: Bry -t d /r..•Q Acreage:
Setback Criteria
Is a dwelling located within 200 feet of waste application?
t
3.o
Is a well located within 100 feet of waste application?
Is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Is animal waste lard applied or spray irrigated within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream?
Yes O No 311'
Yes ❑ No 3
Yes ❑ No 1r
Yes ❑ No
Yes ❑ No 30'
Yes ❑ No ar'
Yes ❑ No 1'
Yes ❑ Vo e
Yes ❑ No 13'
Yes ❑ No i'
AOI — January 17,19%

Maintenance `
Does the facility maintenance need improvement? Yes 0 No CT�
Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes ❑ No 3`�
Does record keeping need improvement? Yes 0 No &"
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on site? Yes C' No 0
Explain any Yes answers:.
74 x eti;s4re
d
tk4,s4_ obi^.* RN c���ro✓c�
6.
Lr497
Signature: _Date: 710 2 / 9
cc. Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed
Drawings pr_ QbservadgM:
SdL A1.:�. _+ a.♦..gar., rs .a—. �.... - -
AQI — January 17,19%

Site Requires Immediate Attention:
Facility No. T 3
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: 'TuJ!3 14 , 1995
Time: /4-; 34
-7 5 74-
Farm Name/Owner: Marro 11 's Tlo, ,131(iL % Ca rho ll s Fa oof 27Nc-,
Mailing Address:lM SGI-,47s Ar-MaT Rd Lo. ,-�N bu.-g NC Z'F 3 5Z,
County: Sew 1 a w d - -
Integrator: Phone:
On Site Representative: Phone: ('(II©)_ 2:�-7 - 0-7-7-7
`Physical Address/Location: S R 1 * 33 ivc a _ 7 * .bus, was -t
No
7
Type of Operation: Swine ✓ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: /Zoo Fd„--F,N Number of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: Longitude: -79 ° 2',V-9 "
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately 1 Foot + 7 inches) (�D or No A tual Freeboard: �Ft. O Inches
Was any seepage observed from the la n(s)? Yes o No Was any erosion ogor
ed? Yes o' 1�'
Is adequate land available for spray. Yes r No Is the cover crop adequate? No
Crop(s) being utilized: 13 er^AikA01.
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from DwelliNor
Ye or No
100 Feet from Wells? No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes orft)
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes or N&
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes ot& If Yes, Please Explain.
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? Ye or No
Additional Comments: 6D -T-L, i s -F,, �.-_ , s t , s+,, ors P(o , 7 5 7'f-
SIC Y' ft�lrt{i
Inspector Name
Signature -
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

101 .. .. 00..
I'M
DIVISION of ENVIRONMEENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
County
Dear
On an 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 questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact
me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group

021 P03
NORTH CAROLXNA DEPARTMENT OF 21W RONM NT, MKI1LTH do NATURAL RSSODRC$S
Fayetteville regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
4W4geflf*iiK�w'b43•`
ti q ry yw:..w...:... ,rrv• q� Jw w
�•. �... .. q'we.fJ
l4KF4�Wid:e+G�Kh�
'M�..w.wo- qo.:w-n .y.�wK.....w.. v.r. +f•�..
axw.
ti"rN:+ .�!ss'+`rl v.!s.�+ia�•..,n..awK�..wJx�
�'w���w.. ',."��w
��'`: „,`•i f1M�'�w�q�a.'.^
..,.... ...Ca e
. K•Z!
�
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
An imal - gRtratjon T
Horses, cattle, swin , poultry, or sheep
f --1-04"
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 11-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CERTIFIED ANIMAL
MM MANAGMUMf 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 5cs minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?

101 00 100 00:00
MZPTIPH III
Y I lei
Field site manag ent
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 Hap
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 PLXR?
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
(mn:,) of the approved PFRTMCAT1OrP T
7. Does animal waste lagoon have -sufficient �p
freeboard? How much? (Approximately )
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Catiement jj