830023_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

Facility Number: 830023
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit Routine
Date of Visit 02/13/2017 Entry Time: 01:00 pm
Farm Name: Farm 7687
M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Active permit AWS830023
Inactive Or Closed Date:
County: Scotland Region:
Exit Time: 2:00 pm Incident S
Owner Email:
Owner. Murphy -Brown LLC Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 28108 Nashville Church Rd Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34° 55' 56"
On the west side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC.
Facility Status:
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Longitude: 79° 29' 27"
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
James Brian McGugan
Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(e):
Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd
Phone:
Cm -site representative
Mike Cudd
Phone:
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:.
page: 1

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00 52.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830023
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Dischames & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
E ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a, Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ N
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
No No No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
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
❑
E ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yee No Na He
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ E ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830023
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
Ng Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Gilead
Soil Type 2
wagram
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yee No Na No
19, Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 830023
Inspection Date: 02/13/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yee No tie
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and i" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22, Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
■ ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
E ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewCinspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ E ❑ ❑
page: 5

0 Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 830023 Facility Status: Active
Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection
Permit: AW5830023
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Scotland Region:
Date of Visit: 03/16/2015 Entry Time: 09:00 am Exit Time: 10:00 am
Farm Name: Farm 7687
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
❑ Denied Access
Fayetteville
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487 Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 28108 Nashville Church Rd Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status: NCompliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 34' 55' 56" Longitude: 79' 29' 27"
On the west side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, 5tor, 8 Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Incident #
Owner Email:
Phone:
Certified Operator: James Brian McGugan Operator Certification Number: 986752
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representativeis): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Cudd Phone:
On -site representative Mike Cudd Phone:
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity: 2,400
Total SSLW: 1,039,200
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.0o 31.00
page: 2

Permit: AWSB30023 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 1npsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ M
❑
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)
❑
❑ M
❑
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑0
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection Storage & Treatment
Yes No No No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Apelication
Yes
No No No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
$matt Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Gilead
Soil Type 2
Wagram
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
M ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
1 B. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 03/16/15 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
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
E ❑
❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
N ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
E ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na He
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
■ ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑
❑
34, Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
830023 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS830023
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
03/24/2014 Entry Time: 11:00 am
Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident#
Farm Name:
Farm 7587
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
28108 Nashville Church Rd
Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator. Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 34° 55' 56" Longitude:
79' 29' 27"
On the west side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael L Cudd Operator Certification Number: 25233
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s):
Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name
Mike Cudd Phone
On -site representative
Mike Cudd Phone
Primary Inspector:
Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspectar(s):
Inspection Summary:
Records reviewed 3/13/14.
Site visit 3/24/14.
page: 1

Permit: AWS830023 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date:-03/24/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
rl Swine - Farrow to Wean
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830023 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ ■
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes
No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le.l large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
N ❑
❑
S. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
E ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 101/oI1 O lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

I
Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Mate Application
Yes
No No No
Crop Type i
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Gilead
Soil Type 2
Wagram
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
■ ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑0
❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 03/24/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection treason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
■ ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fall to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
E ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number.
830023 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AVVS830023
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit,
Routine County:
Scotland Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
02125/2013 Entry Time: 11:00 am Exit Time: 12:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
Farm 7687
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
28108 Nashville Church Rd
Laurinburg NC 28352
Facility Status:
Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
34' 55' 56" Longitude:
79' 29' 27"
On the west side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream
Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator:
James Brian McGugan
Operator Certification Number:
986752
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 214113
Site visit 2/25/13
page: 1

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection pate: 02/25/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 2,400
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures observed
Disignated
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon 1 19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
❑ E❑
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)
❑
❑ N
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (LeJ large
❑
■ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
N ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
■ ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ E ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 Ibs ?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 lnpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na Na
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1 Gilead
Soil Type 2 Mgram
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No NR No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS830023 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 830023
Inspection Date: 02/25/13 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No No No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
E ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fait to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25, Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No No Ne
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
E ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewerlinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
■ ❑
❑
page: 5

r ype ui v isit: b t-ompuance inspection v uperanon meview v Nrructure Evaivanon v 1 ecnmcai Assistance
Reason for Visit: • Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: I zr 'p�+� County: 540�r%jl) Region: OF�b
Farm Name: ! 6 $7 -1 Owner Email:
Owner Name: ►;'l iLs'fJ '0'�aorl, C.�C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: - M aid Title: Phone:
+d
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:��L�U
Integrator: /VILLAp
— 1
Certification Number: I % 63
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design
Currents#t x �aDesign
Current .;
_ Design Current
Swine Capacity
Pop. _ WeoultryCapactty
Pop.
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish Layer
DairyCow
Wean to Feeder
4 W1 Non -La er I
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish "'°'
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
-j ', Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
,D , P,oWt Ga acity
P,a
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
Gilts Non -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA [] NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [::]No
❑ Yes [PNo
❑ Yes EP No
NA ❑NE
NA ❑ NE
NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

-
FaciliNumber: - 1 Date of Inspection: - S1,3
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No
� NA
❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[D No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
E�bNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): CaaS-(jj. j T v14/r a l5-Ytt 45 L12OS411ee) , G,-cL,\,,, 0
Mii S
13. Soil Type(s): i,,` I 69LO 1 a M Vy.,
_
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[�t No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
E0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
[] Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
t 8. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
,CP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
5 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ®No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard []Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" 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 KR No
❑ NA ❑ NE
[] Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ® No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No
the appropriate box(es) below,
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
2& Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
2T 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 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)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
C� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Qg No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [21 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): 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).
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:��� /
21412011

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit ® Routine Q Complaint O Fallow up O Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �Departure Time: bs�Q� County: s2__6124 ' 0 Region: _
Farm Name: �_ h1 _ 1 ril) Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
L
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative:
Integrator:
Phone No:
a," . `j'`
i
Certified Operator: A" �T�" Operator Certification Number: _ ,_ �76 3
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 e ❑ = ❑ Longitude: ❑ ° ❑ I ❑
Design Current
-' Designs Currentowl
D _'gn Current
Swine
Cap sty Population
W etlPoultry
Capacety Pop laU on
Cattle g ,Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Laver
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
S
❑ D Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
�DryiPouEfry
- -
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
❑ Non -Layers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Turke Poultsr
[U!O::t:h:c
❑Other
Number'ofStructurres: ❑
_.
-..
Discharges & Stream Imoacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
JPNA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
[P 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
[A NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ 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

.
Date of Inspection
Facility Numher: —
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
tu No
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? -
❑ Yes
❑ No
10 NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 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?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA ElNE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
Q 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
W No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA [I NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
T'
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
14 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑Yes
[jZ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
l l . Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
Q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside
of Area
12. Crop type(s)
I3. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[P 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
jl0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Ce S Y'eJ r` sc. 4a j3 f 17 f 1/
r S'� V (S Co'' *-'rui qz_�111
5
Reviewer/Inspector Name Phone:
Reviewer/) nspecto r Signature: Date: 3 1
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents TT"�
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes P, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [2(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists El Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes 44 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25_ Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit`?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26, Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
CB�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
F�51 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
W 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
W 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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

E.Tm s - % V//z 1"110
9'Uivision of Water QMIG
+Facility Number g3 ®� 0 Division of Sol) aadnservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit
ompliance Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
outine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: -Zy-/d Arrival Time: Departure Time: 7:DO wr County: S�ONd Region: �%ZU
. n►d tf
Farm Name: % I 7 Owner Email:
Owner Name: M - AgYaww 4 LC Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 114t ke (,'a JIj —Title: /_MM Phone No-
Onsite Representative: Integrator: M BA-.0 I. J N
Certified Operator: '6F�-r_ rWy-al Operator Certification Number: / % 43
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o Longitude: = ° = = u
Design Current Design C•urr'ettt Design
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity
Current
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to FeederIIE]
Non -Layer I
I
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
Dsy Poultry
=
❑ Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean 2*00
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
ues
❑ Pllt
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other I
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
e. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No L'7NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No B A ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No LSNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 19'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: $3 — DZ Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment �/
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El Yes L7 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes lko ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 7 (A $ -7
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 2 (o ,,.�,,N/
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? [I Yes EYo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes 3'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? El Yes ,EIS, oo ❑ NA El NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes M o ❑ 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 E5No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Apolication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? ,�
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElE
Yes Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or I0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) 23eV)+4fJoL-. �j�es�u+ c�� �/�ralf �►`�!�/ t �,5.
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[�eo
No ❑NA❑NE
El NA ❑NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
D< ElNA ElNE
B<o' ❑NA ❑NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name @IV<,L7k l�e.t/L �S Phone• 1710. ! 33. 3300
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: - 44--r.� Date: A,60 & 1 z0,00
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 8 —0 Date of Inspection
Re aired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ffNo ❑ 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.
❑ W1JP El Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑Other
21.
Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
30 o ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I"
❑ Weather Code
Rain Inspections,.,
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
ElE Yes
/�
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
Cl, o [I NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Po<o ElNA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
ElYes
9Ko0 ❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
2No00' ❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
L'T o ❑ 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
MrNo ❑ 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
El Yes
2 ❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
33_
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

��lS �kY�d `f/o3/zaa i
ivision of Water Quality
Facility Number 83 ; z 3 O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit EY16-ompliance
Inspection
0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation
0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit
(?Ir outine 0 Complaint
0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency
0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: ID- Q/ Arrival Time: 2 : /s �„r Departure Time: �; 3s County: Sc�fla�td
Farm Name: 7CO S% Owner Email:
Owner Name: Af 11! i ' srAu1 nl Phone:
Mailing Address:
Region: FRO
Physical Address: Facility Contact: — RaN d. 4 BU#R ggrvnlW Title: FaYju j'+ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: __-t e)Alr— .. �f(�tGG�'NW Integrator: Nap-OQ G114
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = 4 = Longitude: = o [_-1' = "
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
� 1 .
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (1 f yes, notify DWQ)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker '
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
l
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
B NNA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
El No
[ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
E A
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ErNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E o
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: �j— 23 Date of Inspection / O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [3No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No L7 NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: - 57
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
3_3 " Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
E 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
ETNo
❑ 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? El Yes
E7 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
D
❑ 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
�--,,��
D o
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Aaulication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
DINO
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElL� Yes
,�,/
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l O% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑J Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) E�e/'/tttl4 C K7./ _ ��`r �i�✓ �Ot/eY��LJ _ _
-
13. Soil type(s)
le &
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
El-Ko
❑ NA
El NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes
L'YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
El NA
❑ NE
18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
,0-�ilo
EK
❑ 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 Name RI ��� s Phone: WO, �3 , 33o0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 3 —%Q — Zoo?
IZ12151" (_onrinuea

Facility Number: g —Z Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes B<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ETIN ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n ❑ Maps p 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 V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes B No ❑ NA ❑ NEE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Ef 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
[rN0
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Comments and/or Drawings:
❑ Yes
Lff o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[J'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [ /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
eNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

B=m s Z,, 'y/0z% 8
ivision of Water Quality
Facility Number S3 .23 0 Division of Soil and Vater Conservation
- - ---- — — Qther Agency
Type of Visit ompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Gqtrutine 0 Complaint 0 Fallow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Qg Arrival Time: Q , j Departure Time: 10 • S County: SGp_1�ani4
Farm Name: It 76 R 7 Owner Email:
Owner Name! /411jo k, 19"2",/A/ Phone!
Mailing Address:
���
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: rC4Nay t7K/K�j�rNW ^Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:Se s-Al9-✓ Y Integrator: /�"�-✓o�,�✓�-
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = = [ ,1 Longitude: [= o =1 ❑ fl
Design Current-F!E&o�n
Designs` C•urrcnt Design Current
Swine0
Capacity Pnpulatton#ultry
Capacity Populaty n Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Dai Cow
Wean to Feeder
er
❑ Dairy Calf
ElFeeder to Finish
``"" t»�� El Dai Heifer
Farrow to Wean
2 OQ Dry Poultry
: � � *. � . u [] ll Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
a ers
.. - ❑Non-Dai
El Farrow to Finish
El Beef Stocker
Gilts
ElBeef Feeder
8113oars
❑Beef Brood Co
Turkcvs
Turkey Poults
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? [:]Yes LgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at; ❑ Structure El Application Field El Other
a_ Was the conveyance man-made? ElYes No El NA El NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (Ifyes. notify DWQ) El Yes No El NA El NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters ofthe State (.allons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes. notify DWQ) El Yes M No ❑ NA El NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'? El Yes 0No El NA ElNE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State El Yes JO No El NA El NE
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 3 — Z 3 Date of Inspection f-zS-O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes J9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes 6No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 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?
❑ Yes
In No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
(3 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
D3 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement'?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers_ setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement'?
IL Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ 'total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidenceof Wind Drift ❑ Application
Outside of
12. Crop type(s)
Area
13. Soil type(s) r, A,&
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
El Yes
,,ee��
1_r l No
❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination
? ❑ Yes
a No
❑ NA ❑ NE
IT Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA ❑ NE
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment'?
❑Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
-
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other"c'vmment
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations use'addittonal a es as.necessar
g P ( P. g y):
Reviewer/Inspector Name -TZ< W � " Phone: /�- �33 , 33 ad
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 12128104 Continued

r
via w
Facility Number: 13-2= Date of Inspection .� -2S-O
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [�fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. El WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes W'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
&No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
�R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWM P?
❑ Yes
53 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
0 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
B 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
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
[:]Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit *Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: 7; County: 57C041aNd Region: 0I
Is �t� 11 � 7-70�
Farm Name: 1 — Owner Email:
Owner Name: M 1A VP kh F> VOW fJ
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
FacilityContact: �ANd Bi{►"4p�d�r�.let'` Title: A4,l"'. r _ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
,81`0 WAI
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 0 = , =" Longitude: [� ° = L =
Design Current D.3 1esign Current
Pill 'III
Design Current
Swine
Capacity Population Wet4Pbultry Capacity Population
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ La er
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
on -La er
❑Dai Calf
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ DairyHeifer
® Farrow to Wean
7#00 *�
Dry P.oultryi r_.,
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder
4 1
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Layers
La
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gifts
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
❑ Pullets
❑ Beef Brood Cow
- ❑ Turkeys
Other
❑ Other
❑ Turkey Pou Its
❑
Number ofFStnuctures:
Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a_ Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
EA No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
Z 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
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge'?
Page I of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number. g3 — Z3
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): 9
Observed Freeboard (in): S
❑ Yes 1� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �] 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
/ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [$ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [I Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) �E�'%tL G� / :'t) ,L- G p""WO-S-)
13. Soil type(s) f «d
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
{ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
,:Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments
.Use drawings offacility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):.
Reviewer/Inspector lame
- — Phone: 9l0• OV3, 3330
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: Z -/y-zoo 7�-
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records &_Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes RD No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Desig
n El Maps El Other
21, Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [K No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes tM No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
(9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
V 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
ONo
❑ 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
PQ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ZI No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings: F.cs� '
Page 3 of 3 12128104

t
Type of visit A Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �.i<S- Departure Time: County: S4a&Region: C 'ZO
Farm Name: -40- 76 g 7% Owner Email:
Owner Name:y /�Y[] eJ/�/Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: /
Facility Contact: ��� �- r�yL C! Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator: IfIyTd4 _ 0t?pff1,J1
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Operator Certification number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = O = { = u Longitude: 0 0 ='
=
I i ;ap
Design
_
Current
Design Current
Design Current
Swine
-,C paucity
Population
Wet Poultry
Capacity Pop lation
C►attle
Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
rv4
-P
D. oultry
- _
z Y
❑Dai Cow
❑ Da' Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
El Dry Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
El Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
[KED
❑ La ers
i�'s�:u���s�:_
ElNon-Dairy
El Beef Stocker
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
[INon-La ersEl Pullets
❑Beef FeederBoars ElBeef Brood Cowlt
" any
❑ Turke sther
❑ Turke Poults..
❑ Other
El Other
Number of'Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[Y No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
UNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
rA 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
ElNE
2_ is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: U —2- 3 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment ,�y�
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? El Yes LM"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes EIFNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): S �/
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
[ANo
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes
[$No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes
[WNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
[21 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes
[VNo
WU
ElNA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes
[%No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
[?7No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 101bs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ElApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) — 196*�Xf'WaL /5/�Jzi4
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
[91 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. 1s there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
ReviewerlInspector Name " __ G ) e.Y{ Y f Phone: 10 4e$ti —/S5W/
ReviewerlInspector Signature: � Date: &I — elf 2-d0 &P
rage z of .r 121-15/U4 c.onnnuea

r
Facility Number: -23 Date of Inspection d -a
` Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes IR No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [)I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design
g ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 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 U No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did,the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
99 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
(ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional 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 Fallow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: 5CVtkA d _ Region:
Farm Name: /Im"61u, i id',24 -0- 76 97 Owner Email:
Owner Name: t tf Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: —9r," 61W64�we_jc
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone No:
Integrator: ttr
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = & Longitude: 0 0 = I ❑
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population .
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean Z
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other_
❑ Layer 11
❑ Non -Laver
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifei
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stockei
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Number. of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes [A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
CR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
C9No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[Ai No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ 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
fA 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
IN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[X No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
IN No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ FAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ElEvidence of Wind Drill ElApplication Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) _ 47 t•Y44U d,i,rC3 rc j _ C/o ret r_tc
13. Soil type(s) fAJa i�. <
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes (A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination`❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
IReviewer/InspectorName tt yk tQv� 5 Phone: b/04ore, —/s'i/ I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:, Date:

Facility Number: S3 —�3 Date of Inspection
ReQuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [A 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 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?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
R1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
PM 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
00 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
IM 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
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Zg~QS Arrival Time: C� Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: M-4"R k 4 ,.JA/_ 7& g8e _ Owner Email:
Owner Name: g4,02 jJ/d,J hJ Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: Rg ►14 14 C7_!{tu n Q ✓n1f-:�
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Gilts
Other
❑ Other
Region: Fg-O
�,//Phone No:
Integrator: d1WvD- ��iv�t t.Jn/
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: ❑o =, Longitude: =o =, 0
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Nan -La et
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turke s
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1 _ Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made'?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
j
❑ Dai Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
i
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
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)?
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
CM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
M No
❑ Yes
09 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
CM No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 3 — Z 2-7 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure
5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
-
Observed Freeboard (in): 0, 5-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of an of the structures observed?
y
❑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
[4 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
C4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
S. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes CK No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11 _ Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [X No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) ,(4y k t� �•h a /� (.� r�� i O U evS e c d ,
13. Soil type(s) _ Rw i r� .S LJ CL va h^ 6; / ct rX
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes 14 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ftA
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ElYes tN No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination' ❑ Yes
PINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes
CgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/inspector Name _N Phone:
Reviewer/IrtspectorSignature: Date:
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 83 —Z Z Date of Inspection
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes INo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ()4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below_ ❑ Yes DY No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[JINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24_
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
)P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
(A 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
WNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
El Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
[VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
[�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
%No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Addlhor,al z ._Cuaiments and/or Dravviitgs. ,
12128104

It .
Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection . O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit IBRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Time: 0 L
Facility lumber
10'_11; O erational 0 Below Threshold
Permitted ® Certified Q Conditionally Certified D Reositered bate Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm lame: Cd rf%>(VL_Lt DdY=Ckj Countx:iOwner Name: C.C,J-[,oUt 71-KFeN tiF 10Phone No: — !q t t) 2F"('-S &37
Mailing Address: _- . a . rYC g _
Facility Contact: }-{�Pi.�.vt k]ft,�Lj�_Title: Phone No:
OnsiteRepresentative: tAGA-_ Integrator: `
Certified Operator: 66C j fZ rer- l r{ _ Operator Certification Number: /ZlA3!�(
Location of Farm:
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ' i 0" Longitude
Design Current
Swine Cnnmrity Pnnnlntion
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
2 Z
❑ Farrox to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca acity Po elation
❑ Laver I IFEI
Da
❑ Non -Laver Non -Dairy
Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Ln n Area S rav'Reld 4rea
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps 10 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges 8- Stream impacts
1- Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge orizinated at ❑ Laeoon ❑ Sprav Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance mar -made?
b, if discharge is obsmned, did it reach Water of the State? (If ves, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in eal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes. 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
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 � f
El Yes WNo
❑Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes til No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes L�jlNo
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: gg - .23
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?
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes PNo
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 Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes qNo
12. Crop type 13Grrr.twc��- `�— ,�ir�cJ�C CrrC i o' S _
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes FINo
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 [A No
16. Is there a Iack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes P No
Reauired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
q No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
No
21"
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
❑ Yes
No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
M No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
P No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments.(referatoquesbop #) Ezplain anv YES answers an or recommendahans or a45ather comments
Use' drawings of fanlaty to better e:plam situattoniiN-(su eady4dtttona'pages as necessary)
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
�C-0 L J Gy l n /Q�1}(�j ivtAr J. 03
ki0" t�~�
LEI `•� l i�t C0 t �t to O O
Reviewer/Inspector Name AaL
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: V4A AJLDate:
05103101 t Continued

Facility Number: R3 — a3 Date of Inspection _. �
dor Issues
26, Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
2$. 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 12 No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes [@ No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
05103101

-h'''�t1 :� u�ar w r:.-�k a y, � �� �s<."� Y jo ';S'-:x 1#-. t`f`-y'�� - 1w3.�L�'£�`".�Fw�y, r --;• � i,�Fr �r� �,x xs-� �"3 h � 1}iF {h,..
tiy;�,f'.�..•r- �; '-s �' '$ � ?`tx ��DlVlst4n;4f SOLI-and�R'ater Conservati.oA f�`w; �. �"'�;a ";`s-� ry'`- �`�'' °rk 3 ''�'i r'-
}x 'r ti Y �`- N � � - ' t '�yrr ai S ik Rom' �' E-n�' �,^�"-•,;, � 5`� �
♦ � vka �.za. 3 � r .��� � ��^ .h..-�s OOther Agency ,.r i`b• :_' 1 t �{,. -.tom '� ,i:4 �; _,` r yYs:`� t�i n � .� 3 }, � �
Type of Visit Q Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit O Routine ® Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: l)7/34120t73 Time:1L•QO
Facility Number 83 23
O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: 7.7Q_7.................... Count):S-o!tland----------------------------- --- FRO ---------
Owner Name:Cau�li Sk4ttslsJllC----_---------- Phone No: 114 2433439------------------------------
Mailing Address: jrl71.FrtZ .7 9............................ ... ........ Ross,klAlLK......................................................... 28.45.8 ..............
Facility Contact: .......................-_--------__Title:---------------------------- Phone No: ......... -............................
Onsite Representative:-----------------------------------------------____-- Integrator:arr9al'� FaDsl�tt�-----------------------•
Certified Operator: Susat: AaAGbLdJIc•-•-•............. I'tex........................... l�ipS.-............... .- Operator Certification Number: 2)EX9............................
Location of Farm:
)n the west side of SR 1331 approx. 1.5 miles north of its intersection with SR 1324, north of Laurinburg, NC. LA
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 34 • 55 58 G Longitude F 79 • 29 s 29 G
Design . Current
Swine Canarity pnnnlatinn
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
2400
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design -Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
P[3
Layer ❑ Dairy
Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 2,400
Total SSLW
Nutiiber;of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area :r
r
Holditig'Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste. Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
_ is any discharge observed from any part of the operation.)
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated tioov in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (11'yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure I Stricture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 3 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .......... _T.'_.__....... ........................... ._.._..__ _. _- _-__- _- _ -------------------- ........................... _..__._.._.._----._.._.._.
0S/0-3/01 Continued

Facility Number: 83-23 Dale of Inspection 07/30/2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ❑ No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑Yes ❑ No
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat,' notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Waste Apa ication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
11, Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ❑ No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14, a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Required
Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect_ at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
2 t.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question #} Explain any YES,answc4; ya4oir any recommendattons.or aoy other comments
Use drawings of fa ��hty,to'better explain situat�ons;(use additional pages as necessary}'"'El Field Copy �❑ Final Notes
'y ":•. 7r �- '. - �'
.,.
�., :.s-. ,-.,; ...w, e `'-. C.. ra,-...-.ram
i".ta
Visited farm 7/30/03 due to complaint of waste application at night. No waste was being irrigated at time of visit. No evidence of runoff.
+
Lagoon is at 27"
Inspected by Larry Baxley and Dean Morris
Reviewer/Inspector Name`:
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date:
e

`Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
IReason for Visit o Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time:
Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
j Permitted ® Certified Q Conditionally Certified [3 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
Farm Name: (', c. " I t r S 11'c . _ County: SCoi1c"id irrzo
Owner Name: U q _ Phone No: f 0 - .2 }L. SG g-!7-
Mailing Address: [7 • a X SS_` I. C Lc a .k i4.�'.
Facility Contact: Title: ln1 Phone No: Sop"
Onsite Representative: " Co L ��'..� _ Integrator: C c.r�Apl� S
11
Certified Operator: u-: ] Operator Certification Number: :W_ t 3
Location of Farm:
[Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0` �� 0 " Longitude 0a 0` 0 "`
Design
Swine. Ca acit
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean 2zipo4
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
Number of Lagoons
Holding' Ponds L Solid Traps
Current Design Current Design Current
o ulation Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I[] Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ILI S rav Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management Svstem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. if discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d_ Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
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): t (n
05103101
❑ Yes IR No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes R No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 3 — Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ 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? El Yes 0 No
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes © No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes N No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
1pNo
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
Q No
16, Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
(!S No
Required Records & Document
17_
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
R No
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
[' 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'?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes M No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'? ❑ Yes No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes No
0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit
'Use�ttravrtngsrotttacitity to'better eiplain situations: (use.addttional pages as necessary) " [] Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
�.d �-� (�� a• 111E �,f,� be � r�a�-�-r. � .
t~e chi fit' c.t CIO LPOU' rbep
Reviewerllnspector Name `r r $ , s
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: A - z— Date. 6 O
05103101 Continued

Facility Number. Q j — Date of Inspection 6 ` O
Odor 1S5ue5
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor 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? Ox. residue on ncighboring 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 anv 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 stora2c bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32, Do the flush tanks lack a submersed fill pipe or a permanentitemporary cover?
[] Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes P No
El Yes ENo
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes A No
❑Yes ®No
Yes ❑ No
05103101

Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine Q Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: Time: ��
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted N Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Thresh d:
Farm Name: — _ �irtC�•-� 2 County:�-f�M
Owner Name: .5:f _ ��t /a.�/� �1�� _ Phone No: .__r910 ?
Mailing Address: �- �67r % _ ja {— Zile —
Facility Contact:ru��) / .✓ Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative: __ Integrator: r ��
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Operator Certification Number:
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse latitude Longitude ' °
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean 0V Q b
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons'
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps
Design Current Design Current .
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW I , I
1.1r�
-
Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 5 ra X Field Area
No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min'?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system" (If yes, notify DWQ)
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
❑ Yes ®`No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes
WNo
❑ Yes
$TNo
❑ Yes
_
❑ Yes
J;�No
Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection 0
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes �KNo
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 XNo
(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 1KNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes krNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes 'KNo
Waste ADnlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes KNo
11. Is there evidence of over application? /❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 1�[No
12. Crop type �a.e. diS� , sisr.✓�/ _r1C.�J
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes CRNo
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes JgNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes P1No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes RNo
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? Yes El No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes (,No
Reau red Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �;�o
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, chepklists, design, mapytc.) El Yes �No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil same el reports) ❑ Yes ® No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes J9 No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes BFNo
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes WO
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes No
i
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes XNo
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.
❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
%S �20/ �✓a AAe-.-� 411
co.�i�t1�r-� C»a.✓-nC�1i -.Seitz-�.i� /� .��.r��r 4�/iA`C /�"� �o
'0001- ci rr«/ dr r[alss.....r� �.c tr�.fi.�•��E
Reviewerllnspector Name r _
._ 11
,
. � - . } �;„� �� �.-..fir. s
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: G�
O5103101 Continued

Facility Number: ffJ —Z,3 1 Date of Inspection O`er
do Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atior 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?
AddihoaaliGotnents'and/or Drawings._
05103101
❑ Yes 'P No
❑ Yes JR] No*
❑ Yes 06No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes (KNo
Cl Yes WNo
❑ Yes )�Q­No

4L
IS Routine �Q Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Z Date of Inspection H�i
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified © Registered [3 Not OperationalCDate
[Last Operated:
Farm Name: ... .Gtrrp 11 15 -� 77a7 County:.....J.coi ( ...............� ................ _.._.
J...............................................................................
Owner Name: �Q+.t Y�,Ci. C... sC Phone No: 7.� ................. .. ...
- . ...................... f...................................... ...-Z7.......D6.--
Facility Contact:.........................S 7L..............................Title:...._._!............_.... Phone Nam....._... ...................-- - .....
,,, r
1�lailing Address: ...�1r' i�.r........ r. Sa_ !� i'V C z �32�
............... Q{) .................................._.................. .... .... t............. ....................
OnsiteRepresentative: ............. I................ .................... .. Integrator:.................... ............ ....................... ...............
Certified Operator: `- ..................k��srOperator Certification Number:.....
Location of Farm:
Latitude a 4 " Longitude 0 ° 44
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes x No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other �[
a. If discharge is observed. was the conveyance man-made? ❑Yesj] No
b. 1f discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If ycs, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes KJ No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes e
0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes Po
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: it
Freeboard (inches): 3Z
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.) 0
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: — 2 Date of Inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes 4,N0
❑ Yes 1ANo
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 jo No
11. Is there evidence of over plication? ❑ Excessive Po ding O/PAN 9Yes
12- Crop typeef' �yL �a r• rt
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified
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?
Waste Management Plan (CAWMP).
Renuired Records & Documents
IT. 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?
yiQlalritjris'oF d�fcienciias V�ere npte�i d>{x°i�g this'vWJt' - Yowiii-tea*iye ije Wftf - ;
• coriresp deuce: about this visit:..... .
! I!a1• jq6Idf itreot WIrk h C 0,4PI We2dS,
Over
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
V3--z ❑ No
r❑ Yes 94No
❑ Yes Of No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes QkNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes j No
❑ Yes 'No
❑ Yes Od No
A6
-3 -03- r _Y 1 -7 70-7 z-6 3-•3
Hw
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: a Date: k -27—eV

Facility Number: - 23 ( Date of inspection
Odor Issues
26_ Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29, Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes )J No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or l
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes A
No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ANo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No

E = _ '0 DtvW6h of Soil and Water 'Conse_rvation'= Operation Review
_(] ivisiori_of Soil and Water'Conservation-'Caniplrance Inspection
Drv�sion of Water;Quality. - Compliance'I_nspection
© OtherAgency =Operation=Review .
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
I'inrc of inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
13 Permitted [] Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered 0-Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name. � Q 70 County CD�/C�-�-A' ....................
.................... ................................................
Owner Nanic:...-.l�oo/S' /�G Phone No: Z�� ~ Q�
n
..............................................................................
C .............................................................. f.......................................
Facility Contact: .-„GAS,,,,,, . 54.4 ............................ Title:.... :.--��[ Phone No:
Mailing Address: �.� . ............ W GZ/` Gam" Z
..................5.............. f.... .. ....................... .
X ........................................................
Onsite Representative:.... L S Integrator: .............................................
CertifiedOperator: ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
Latitude Longitude
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish JEJ Non -Layer I Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity ggoe
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps JE1 No Liquid Waste Management System
Dischanzes & Stream Inayacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)? ❑ Yes O(No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-rnade'! ❑ Yes �No
h. If discharge is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State ❑ Yes 12No
17-
c. If discharge is observed- what is the estimated Iloxv in galhnin? j/jV/
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? ❑ Yes XNo
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes rNo
o
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes
Waste Collection & 'rreat:nent
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes f�o
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: � � — s�
Freeboard (inches):
116199 Continued on back

v-
Facility Number: 3 — 3 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?
S. Does any pact of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Downy stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, 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? j� Ponding ❑ Nitrogen
12. Crop type .............lJe!rh.. k Ot zL fl �i�-mot.. bti-
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint)
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Oc/ 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 certified operator in responsible 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?
No.vialations.or. deficiencl es .were nta>teti drirint this:visii:. You ill receive no fruitier
c6rr-esporidehee: about: this Fisit.: _ . ..:...:...:...::.:.: ............
❑ Yes )�No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes U(No
❑ Yes plN0
❑ Yes [l�No
❑ Yes O(No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes N io
❑ Yes �No
Cl Yes O(No
❑ Yes ONO
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes XNo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes O No
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes Oro
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any. recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawitigs of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
well 5-4e,
Olt rtf/f �tc�� (iC�'e��e HceasKrcr{.
Reviewer/Inspector Name : o1 , /4,c-,5
Reviewer/lnspectorSignature: - 'Date: 3--2-3 - %. I1/6/99

Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other I
L I Facility Number
Date of Inspection
3
Time of Inspection E� 24 hr. (hh:mm)
E3 Registered OCertified 13 Applied for Permit U Permitted © Not O rational Date Last Operated: ..........................
Farm Name:-77.L.C?n3!...........................................
........./.....7�.7....---�----•........................................................................ County:.....
OwnerName: ....L..G.G.t..crd... L . J.........1..... . ........................... Phone No......... ... JL...........................................
Facility Contact: .. ��...... % s. Title• 6� /�!( ....................... Phone No Z�� ........ ./ .......
Mailing Address:....0........� ...�.u.
1 :........... ..........
Onsite Representative:..5......!............................................................ Integrator: ............. ..._..
Certified Operator:............................................................................................................... Operator Certification Number:.......
Location of Farm:
C
C
Latitude 0 1 « Longitude r—�0 ' C "
T. .. ,
Design ' Current Design Current Design Current
Swutepa Capacrty Popu[ation� ,poultry aCapacity °Population CattleCaparitylPnpulatian
n
[] Wean to Feeder IIJ Layer JE1 Dairy
�`` ❑ Feeder to Finish [] Non -Layer ❑ Nan -Dairy V
Farrow to Wean 2 VOO_ xa'
❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑Farrow to Finish TotalDesign Cailaccty
[I Gilts m'
❑ Boars TUtal`SSLW
„r y
N 10Subsurface Drams Present ❑ Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System y b
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No
2. 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 Surface Water? {If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes qNo
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than I agoons/hol ding ponds) require ❑ Yes No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes 1�No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsibie charge? ❑ Yes ANo
7/25/97

Facility Number: 93 — Z-3
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes P No
Ntruetures (Lagoans.Holding Ponds. Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes fk No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
........... ..................... --....................................
Freeboard (ft): .. .2.6..........................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes dXNo
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes RNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes kINo
(IP 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 gNo
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ONO
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff ente ' g waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type eY,d1iUffejrwi
�......
..................... ..-•--•-••
16. Do the receiving crops those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ONO
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes RIo
18, Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ANo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes VNo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes P(No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes 1No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ANo
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes a
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes ONO
No.vio'lations:or deficiencies.were; noted,iluring this:visit,; Yoidw-ill recei've:iio:fdrth`er
corre*)hdehte aWit this: visit:
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: I/— . A4y4-)4_, �/— Date: �_ Z

' $ - n- xWaa• Y r. '� �i^t. „e � 3R�.N'ec4 B�3'�: � --`4e t -"yF �. {�,., may'
x p 7 ❑ DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation-Review-Mn
,E x
10 Routine O Complaint O Follow-uD of DWO insnection O Follow-uD of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number Date of Inspection
Time of Inspection :4D 24 hr. (bb:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm.status• ❑ Regtsieted Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
❑ Cer4ted Permitted or Inspection includes travel and processing)
❑ Not Operat' pal Date Last Operated: .. _..... ... 1
Farm Name: _ . .� .... _............. ...... _.... ..... ..—.... _. _.... Cau n t� :. See `-F••a h �3 ... _. . _ ..
Land Owner Name _ . _ ..... C lrs�l S ... Phone No: ��.� 4'
Facility Conctact: Lg.S h---. Title: iS ...... _........ Phone No:...�'"`� .. _..... _.---,........
Mailing Address: rc � Qt=.... LJcx rs •--3 C- ? ?
JJ
Onsite Representative:...,---- Integrator: 0 t?W..S� _.. .._i . a.:�... ..... ....�_.
Certified Operator: _ .s° r .t_� r .. .... Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm:
Latitude ' 4 u Longitude 6 H
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
.. ,y� .P'"' «� „r.ram
AwDesign, -Current.-u�.;'Design" Current°i '�"' '"'�''. ^�`s]�eSlgn ,Ht.`Urrent"'
Wlne oul 8ttie 'k� < a:«
€r
< X 4.Ca act xPoelation Y =Ca acitv.ipa ulaho'nft
` Ca aci PO ulahon
❑ Wean to Feeder la . Y ❑ D
❑ Feeder to Finish _EEO] Non -La er ` ❑ Non -Da
sets _,01 ,.��.
Farrow to Wean Z 00� :,Yr ,x�T =...
Farrow to Feeder k °� Total Design CapacEy 00
Farrow to Finish '' ��. n
❑ Other
0.
U:::eu
$ ❑Subsurface Drains Present N.._
Number of i,,agoons /�Hatd�ng Ponds K
a �❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
General
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man -trade?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gaVinin?
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 XNo
❑ Yes ANo
❑ Yes XNo
[:]Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes (,]
o
El yes No
Cl Yes % No
Continued on hack

Facility Number: 737 7.2-5._
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 XNo
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes )VNo
Freeboard (ft). Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
�r
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 XNo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes <No
(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 & 'INo
Waste AnDlieation
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes XNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runofff fenteri Dwaters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type _ ..L►4S3q... l�.t. X
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes XNo
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes 1KNo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes jNo
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yeso
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes ,KNo
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes fl(No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ETNo
24_ Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ONo
Conirrients .(refer to "questionExplain' any YES answers' and/or any recommendations or any, other comments. # ",
Use diawings.of faci)zty to bettei explain situations' (use addtt�bnal r! es:as necessary):
r
�-GLfM i C o PK �} It, dz-Ac
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: T-Zl
cc: Division of Water Quality, meter Quality Section, Farcility Assessment Unit 4/30/97

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Fayetteville Regional Office JA&
E021a
.lames B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N
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
19Mly M
Enclosure
cc: Facility Compliance Group
Wachovia Building, Suite 714, Fayetteville N%50%
FAX [phone]
North Carolina 28301-5043 C An Equal Opportunity Atfirrnative Action Employer
Voice 910-486-1541 recycled/10% post -consumer paper

,40M
Facility Number:
Division of Environmental Management
Animal Feedlot Operations Site Visitation Record
Date: 7 4 L
Time: 1O/S
Grteral Information -
Farm Name: +9 7707 e are- l/'s _ _ County:—q-gM,-/ d
Owner Name: Ca v ►-o i 1 's Fa o d s T," c- Phone No: _(9io) 2- 93 - 3 s43
On Site Representative: AZ Integrator Cct ro
Mailing Address:yD Q►-a, ., _ gs
i.,JPrS�w NC ZS 399,
Physical AddressA ocation:
Latitude: I 1 Lon 'mde: I I
Operation Description: (based on design characteristics)
Dpe of Swint No. of Animals Type of Poultry No. of Animals Type of Cattle No. of Animals
Sow o LVea►,v ❑ Layer 0 Dairy
0 Nursery ❑ Non -Layer 0 Becf
❑ Feeder
OrherType of Livestock Number of Animals:
Number of Lagoons: -J- (include in the Drawings and Observations the freeboard of each lagoon)
Eacilit_y In5Rectign:
Lagoon
Is lagoon(s) freeboard less than 1 foot + 25 year 24 hour storm storage?: 3. q- Yes ❑ No L°l/
Is seepage observed from the lagoon?: Yes 0 No
Is erosion observed?: Yes ❑ No C'1'
Is any discharge observed? Yes ❑ No iK
0 Man-made O Not Man-madt
Cover Crop
Does the facility need more acreage for spraying?: Yes ❑ No
Does the cover crop need improvement?: Yes a Noe
(list the crops which need &Vrovenu nt)
Crop type: f0. .., Acreage:
Setback Criteria
Is a dwelling located within 200 feet of waste application? Yes a No
Is a weU located within 100 feet of waste application? Yes ❑ No
Is animal waste stockpiled within 100 feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes ❑ No
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 feet of Blue Line Stream? Yes ❑ No Cr'
AOI — January 17.1"6

Maintenance _/
Does the facility maintenance need improvement? Yes ❑ No al
Is them evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? Yes 0 No e
Does record keeping need improvement? Yes 0 No 3-11"
Did the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan on site? Yes ❑ No
Cev+ 4tP N 000 l YZ
Explain any Yes answers:
Signature: /7�_ /S S:.,t � _ Date: V-0 z,/ 9 CQ
cc. Facility Assessment Unit Use An"hm enu if Needed
Drawing or Obse_rvations7
- - � •rsnnrls- ^- a.. - - aura [�,t1a •.i.e�. *. •.�r..tn. -rT�r _.
AOI — January 17,1996

Site Requires Immediate Attention: /d0
Facility No. `d 3 - 2 3
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS SITE VISITATION RECORD
DATE: 3-,.& 15 14 , 1995
Time: ► T. 4L(P
Farm Name/Owner: Ca rro f %'S 7 7 0 7
Mailing Address: M 6o ar / 7 & 7 L au r / u v NG Z 93S3
County: 5co,tla.v
-Integrator: Phone:
On Site Representative: AL jL am c_ Phone:_ (9/0) a 7 7 - *.*Z.0 0
Physical Address/Location: sot i3z8 Nam„ 5,H.L,iif Lr, ,J
Type of Operation: Swine ✓ Poultry Cattle
Design Capacity: z,*oo Far -we +m Number of Animals on Site: Z,4d0
DEM Certification Number: ACE DEM Certification Number: ACNEW
Latitude: 3* G 55' S S • Longitude: 7 9 ° 29 ' 29 "
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event
(approximately I Foot + 7 inches) es or No Actual Freeboard: 8 Ft. 0 Inches
Was any seepage observed from the la oon(s)? Yes or( l&Was any erosion observed? Yes or N�
Is adequate land available for spray. la
llo Is the cover crop adequate? �or No
Crop(s) being utilized: Coo:s4cL f
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria? 200 Feet from Dwellings? (&or No
100 Feet from Wells? �' or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or(&
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Feet of a USGS Map Blue Line: Yes oeo
Is animal waste discharged into water of the state by man-made ditch, flushing system, or other
similar man-made devices? Yes orAD 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)? K(-!&i)or No
Additional Comments: r•N e.. "ie
'Inspector Name
Signature
cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed.

101 88 '00 00:00
021 P02
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
November 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Compliance Inspection
County
Dear
1-5-.,�c6 1F�
On , , an inspection of your animal operation was performed
Fayetteville Regional Office (MO). Please find enclosed a copy
by
of
the
our
Compliance inspection Report for your information. It is the
opinion
of
this
office that this facility is in compliance With 15N XCAC 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

F'i r m
LW
Un
LUX
kHz
IM
L4.0
UO
-4a
Un So—
2
IM to.
M-1 LULAIL ILU UM
9 AQL�
Lim
IM
lal L.
UST
LA" Lelk
_& LM
11M
lar
L
i
ML an
A
LM
MIA 5-6 G—
ilk It M1 UILL Lai
LUM WE
MILL POND
LIN
UU ]in
U" tRs
' A
LLU ni;Un 9 ram f La 91 qn U. Ak"A
0
im
Pula
Un
GMLSOW
Liu 74
IV
40J .'J.
„M Iry UN
ow
IM
C---" L"t.
UL JA22 XD
!AJ
ff LW
HL
4b
I
A W1
Scotland County ", �
This southern border county was
estabished in 1899. Laurinburg is -the
- ' -
county seat of Scotland County, named
so for Scotland in the British Isles from
which many of the early settlers of the
region came, J!X

101 00 100 00:00
NORTH C WLIKA OF , HEALTH & WATQRAL EiRSOa M
DIVISION OF ENVIRONNMUAL NANAG>DUM
Fayetteville Regional Office
Animal Operation Compliance Inspection Form
!MiKbYN •1A:ocA�.e[«?c.i`. .�.,.... -
fIM�3A�
A' � �Y-'wti:N�YtlIMJ�MI��
OW
r. �.«....�..
�K 6NVii�f�1%M.i1.w 0�L:4�F wSww«vrraiw�o��.k)4lkkven6eiN.�a�M�M'�aMsni.4��AMa s.. nv:v.Yw r+w
1115
rr c
I
1S �
N��'iw �4 .a.+�a'�R ..�[.rtx.rdR� Raw+ .�f.r{4� !M N`»R
Mi»�-%�s9 T% �E..�aY.•. .. ...i. �.�. �n�w,/rr.v.::r...��y y���
All questions answered negatively will be discussed in sufficient detail in
the Comments Section to enable the deemed Permittee to perform the appropriate
corrections:
Sz=ON I
iMal_Oaeration Tvoe:
Horses, cattle, wine poultry, or sheep
1. Does the number and type of animal meet or exceed
the (.0217) criteria? (Cattle (100 head),
horses (75), swine (250), sheep (1,000), and
poultry (30,000 birds with liquid waste
system)]
2. Does this facility meet criteria for
Animal operation REGISTRATION?
3. Are animals confined fed or maintained
in this facility for a 12-month period?
4. Does this facility have a CxRTIFnm ANIKAL
fiI M MAMAGEKMT PLAN?
3. Does this facility maintain waste management
records (volumes of manure, land applied,
spray irrigated on specific acreage with
specific cover crop)?
6. Does this facility meet the SCS minimum
setback criteria for neighboring houses,
wells, etc?
va©
yoo

101 00 100 00:00
mmgimm In
Y 1 N
yield site management
1. Is animal waste stockpiled or lagoon
_. construction within 100 ft. of a USGS
Map Blue Line Stream?
2. Is animal waste land applied or spray
irrigated within 25 ft. of a USGS Hap
Slue 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
CE T—M-- C &T 12 L PL"
5. is animal waste discharged into Waters of
the state by marl -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 C tTIPICATZON?
7. Does animal waste lagoon have sufficient �Dat
freeboard? How much? [Approximately S )
8. Is the general condition of this CAFO facility,
including management and operation,
satisfactory?
SECTION IV
Comments

orihveston of Wat uality
Q Dtnston of Soil and WaterConservation µ -
rQ Other -Agency
Type of Visit ompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Beason for Visit koutine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification Q Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number g 3 jDateurvisit: $'a`� I Time: =:= Printed on: 7/21/2000
Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold
Permitted ❑ Certified ❑HConditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: l county:...... SCc��I[�n,�................................................
..............................................................................................................................
Owner Name; ........ Cc*: r 5 or s , , ± c„ Phone No:
.......r.................................. I...........................
11
Facility Contact: ...... . {� n„S...... ...... Title: v: /ti f Phone No:
.............................................
Nlailing Address:
OnsiteRepresentative: ...................................................................................................... Integrator: ......................................................................................
Certified Operator:.........`................ u-G.^s Operator Certification Number: .............
...... ...
Location of Farm:
❑ Swine ❑ poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �� ��°° Longitude
Design
Curreut : Design Current
Desigts Correct
S�vine Capacity
Poultry pCateCa
Po ilation
Ca -1 Po _ tian
Wean to Feeder
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
x
Farrow to Wean 0 yp
Farrow to Feeder
❑Other
' K= Farrow to Finish
Total Design Capacity
cad, +,laG
Gilts
Boars
Tata15SLW
= Nttriber 41�ig
❑ Subsurface Drains Present
Lag on Area
10
Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Soidmg Poat3s ISolyd Traps:°C�
. •.
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field [IOther
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes o
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes No
c_ If discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in gal/min"
d- Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (if yes, notify I.IWQ) ❑ Yes ONo
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Iq
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 Wo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure -I Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:..................................................................................................................
Frechoard (inches):
5/00 Continued on back

Facility Number: g3— a 3 Date of inspection `a25-a Printed on: 7/21/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes No
seepage, etc.) r
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or y,
closure plan? Yes [1F�i' No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes gNo
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes VNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ofNo
It.
Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
16 No
12.
Crop type esrn a &.,a.0 Gam:, D% V-!Se_j
13.
_
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
XNo
14,
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
IgNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes(
No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
No
lT
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
16.
Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Po
Renuired Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
(fNo
__
18.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
Yes
rr
No
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑
0
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
PfNo
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
0No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
discharge,
❑ Yes
(ie/ freeboard problems, over application)
9'No
23,
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
VNo
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
P(No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
XNo
.... violate 0h ;ok defciendi $ #'re'noted during #his;visit: Yoit� will rec iye Rio further
corrtzs ' deuce. about: this visit:: :
(704 Mt' Wort,
rRq
654 raf
#) Ex ,lain any YFS'attswers and/or any. recoi
tter exptarn 4t=ta0ns (use addi&inal.pages as;
WX Weds "A 1Vr, Jic.V\
iendatiions or,any"other comrne
t Ih D tali e/vt
L
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
5100

Facility Number: S — 3 Date of Inspection 4�p Printed on: 7/21/2000
Odor issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes [ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes OCNo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes KNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray systern- intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ;VNo
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 JKNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes f No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? Yes ❑ No
Additional -Comments and/or: rawrn'c _
ALI
J
5100