820216_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
r-
Department of Environmental Qual

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
820216
Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS820216
❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit
Routine
County:
Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Data of Visit:
03/22/2017 Entry Tim: 12:30 pm Exit Time: 1:00 pm Incldent #
Farm Name:
Fszell Farm
Owner Email:
Owner.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
10879 Taylors Bridge Rd
Magnolia NC 28453
Facility Status:
E Compliant ❑
Not Compliant Integrator.
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farr.
Latitude:
34° 49' 34" Longitude:
78° 13' 44"
On the east side of Hwy 421 approx. 2 miles north of Delway, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents
Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wayne O Sanderson Operator Certification Number: 17903
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Sits Represenfafiveis]: Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone
On -site representative Mike Ammons Phone
Primary Inspector. Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 820216
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swtne
Swine - Feeder to Finish 2,844
Total Design Capacity: 2,844
Total SSLW: 383,940
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
39.00
Lagoon
F77 LL-3078
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 820216
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Sbwm_ 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?
❑
EIN
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
■ ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
M ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na Me
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e.l large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
M ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
M ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes Ng 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?
❑ ❑ ❑
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: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 820216
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes Na Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Corn, wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Ovemeed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Blanton sand, 0 to s%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro loamy sand, o to
2% slopes
Soil Type 3
Lynn Haven sand
Soil Type 4
Wagram loarny sand, 0 to
S% slopes
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 tack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na ry
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?
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
page: 4

0 .-.
Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number. 820216
Inspection Date: 03/22/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No No No
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22' Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑M
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concem? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31, Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
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 ❑ ❑ ❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ E ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ M ❑ ❑
page: 5

f l
0
Division of Water Resources
El
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Other Agency
Facility Number.
820216
Facility Status: Active Permit: AVVS820216
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit:
07/29/2015 Entry Time:
08:00 am Exit Time: 9:00 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Fzzell Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address:
PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address:
10879 Taylors Bridge Rd
Magnolia NC 28453
Facility Status:
E rr.,., pi-f n
Kim r.,.,,. H-f I Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
On the east side of Hwy 421 approx. 2 miles north of Delway, NC.
n gra or.
Latitude: 34" 49' 34"
Longitude: 78° IT 44"
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Wayne O Sanderson Operator Certification Number: 17903
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone
On -site representative Mike Ammons Phone
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820216
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish 2,844
Total Design Capacity: 2,844
Total SSLW: 383,940
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
49.00
Lagoon
E77ELL-3078
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820216 Owner -Facility: Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820216
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 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?
❑
M ❑
❑
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)
❑
❑ M
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWO)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, 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 (I.e./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
E ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ M ❑ ❑
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: AWS820216 Owner- Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820216
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Com, Wheat. Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Blanton
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro
Soil Type 3
Lynn Haven sand
Soil Type 4
Wagram
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?
❑ M ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No No Ng
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
0
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: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 82D216
Inspection Date: 07/29/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and i" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
(]M
❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑
❑
Otherlssues
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,
❑
■ ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWO of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon/Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
M ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
M ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 5

aDivision of Water Resources
of Soil and Water Conservation
El
Other
Other Agency
Facility Number: 820216 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWS820216
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection
inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for visit: Routine County:
Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 10123/2014 Entry Time: 12:00 pm Exit Time: 1:00 pm Incident #
Fans Name: Ezzell Farm
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 10879 Taylors Bridge Rd
Magnolia NC 28453
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude:
34' A9' 34„ Longitude:
78' 13' 44"
On the east side of Hwy 421 approx. 2 miles north of Delway, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Wayne O Sanderson
Operator Certification Number:
17903
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons
Phone:
On -site representative Mike Ammons
Phone :
Primary Inspector: Robert Marble
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: i

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820216
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
❑ Swine - Feeder to Finish 2,844
Total Design Capacity: 2,844
Total SSLW: 383,940
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.00
46.00
Lagoon
EZZELL-3078
19.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820216
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
You No Na No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
M ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
�]
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
110
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
❑
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 (Le./ large
❑
❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
E ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
E ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
N ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
N ❑
❑
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?
❑ N ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820216
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1 Coastal Bermuda Gress
(Hay)
Crop Type 2 Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 3 Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Blanton
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro
Soil Type 3
Lynn Haven sand
Soil Type 4
Wagram
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?
D
M ❑
❑
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?
[]
M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
M ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na He
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?
❑0
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
[]
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

ft
Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number:
820216
Inspection Date: 10/23/14 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
M ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail 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
❑
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,
❑
M ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
M ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon I Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
■ ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
❑
■ ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 820216 Facility Status: Active
Permit: AWSS820216
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County:
Sampson Region:
Fayetteville
Date of Visit: 12/17/2013 Entry Time: 03:00 pm Exit Time: 4:00 pm Incident #
Farm Name: Ezzell Farm
Owner Email:
Owner: Murphy -Brown LLC
Phone:
910-296-1800
Mailing Address: PO Box 487
Warsaw NC 28398
Physical Address: 10879 Taylors Bridge Rd
Magnolia NC 28453
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude:
34" 49' 34" Longitude:
78° 13' 44"
On the east side of Hwy 421 approx. 2 miles north of Delway, NC.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other issues
Certified Operator: Mark Munoz Operator Certification Number: 990007
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(sl: Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Ammons Phone:
On -site representative Mike Ammons Phone:
Primary inspector: Robert Marble Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary lnspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820216
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Feeder to Finish
Total Design Capacity:
Total SSLW:
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
1
19.OD
Lagoon
EZZELL-3078
19,00
page: 2

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820216
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 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?
❑
❑ 0
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ M
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
❑ 0
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
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 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
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
❑
❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Na
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Dumber: 820216
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 1npsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na No
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 3
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Blanton sand, 0 to 6%
slopes
Soil Type 2
Goldsboro loamy sand, 0 to
2 % slopes
Soil Type 3
Lynn Haven sand
Soil Type 4
Wagram loamy sand, o to
6% slopes
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
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?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS820216 Owner - Facility : Murphy -Brown LLC Facility Number: 820216
Inspection Date: 12/17/13 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
E ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
E ❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
E ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
E ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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,
❑
E ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
■ ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewertinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

type of visit: V uompuance inspection v uperanon tceview V Structure r:vamatnon U 1 eenntcai Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: 30 Z Arrival Time: ` w Departure Time: �tai}A iti County: 5A»'LP� Region: �
Farm Name: 30l 1B Owner Email:
Owner Name: MuafYiL —Byw., Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: N Integrator:( h
I
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design
Swine Capacity
Current Design
Pop. Wet Pou1t� -Capacity
"~
Current
Pop.
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pap.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Wean to Feeder Non -La er
Feeder to Finish
-
Heifer
Farrow to Wean
'; D`esign
Current
—Dairy
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
D 1'oult :" Ca aci
P,o
Non-Dai
Farrow to Finish
La ers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
Layers
I
113eef Feeder
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
Boars
Turkeys
-
Other
Turkey Poults
Other
Other
Discharp-es 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[—]Yes [:]No
[—]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
[] Yes EP No
NA ❑ NE
TIC NA ❑ NE
NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page l of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: -V10 s ection:13011
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): S� N
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes [B No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public bealth or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? [:]Yes [P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the 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 b No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Auntication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes f] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 5a 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 Approved Area ,
12. Crop Type(s): L1xtS �/Yt , F/bW-042ef L&yh
13. Soil Type(s): !n W
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
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
Qg No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
M 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 [o] 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 No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Racifity Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. 1P
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
rp No
DNA
❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
T
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33_ Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
No
0 NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�clov� re"j i(C .4
/3c`/�
5A, 0' i S
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 403 33 l
Date: $ . 1 Z
21412011

type of visit: w Lompuance inspection tv uperauon xeview CJ Ntructure Evatuanon v iecnmcat Assistance
Reason for Visit: • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ;Q Departure Time: B,S' County:-54mf5yJ Region:
Farm Name: Ze wl Owner Email:
Owner Name: 4l/L rlLpt✓ut Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: I' 1 i K 20 (nS Title:
Onsite Representative: it
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: MeLrp-6
cJ�
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design
Current'` -fig
Design
Current
Design Current
Swine
Capacity
Pop Wetkl'oultry
Capacity
Pop:
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
La er
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder T Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
Dairy Heifer
Farrow to Wean
s k
Design
Current
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
-
�.,'; D foul
Ca aci
Po .
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
La crs
Beef Stocker
Gilts
113eef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
113eef Brood Cow
Turkc s
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 X No ElNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
NA ❑ NE
�]NA ❑NE
®NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA [] NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: Date of inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a_ if yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
No
NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): �u
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
[—]Yes
[P 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
�_!l No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health
or environmental threat,
notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
EP 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
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding [[] Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window
❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Appllicatioon Outside of Approved Area
12. CropTyPe(s): L" 13ZCMUJA /IM65raw 1. &' M 0 " . an , WLaT
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?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ Yes
® No
T�
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Kq No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Pa No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Rj No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? []Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No
❑ NA [] NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

FacW Number: - Date of Inspection: 917411
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
P9 NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes �No
❑ NA
❑E N
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
ra
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or:_any other comments.
MCments
:drawingsof facility to better ezplatn situations'(use additional pages as. necessary). = • .:,:
` `�* .
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: y l21'rr
2/4a01I

Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit • Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral r�0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: ��� Q,v Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: A__2
Owner Name: /"I UfVl`U1 `
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �;yi; Carr Title:
Onsite Representative:
tl
Certified Operator: pe
Back-up Operator:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator: 4► 'PrVw►1 C�.G
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [� o =' = « Longitude: = 0 0' =
14
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3_ Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes
El No
mNA
El NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
[] NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
T No
❑ NA
❑ NE
[]Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
12128104 Continued
W

` Facility Number: E VE 112 1 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 NA ❑ NE
Strurre 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier.
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
M No ❑ NA El 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 4-8 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8_ Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
+
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No ElNA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
l
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground [:1 Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or ] 0 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window [:]Evidence of Wind Drift El Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) Q3ZI- 0 ►1Y�`rt Ir�l SS rA... 11 . 56k. CtV Of a4�,1 rze.,ad ,
004 h .
13. Soil type(s) &K G47 6_F 4, N
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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Cornments (r6&_'tbjgoestiom#): Explain any YES ansr�ers and/or any recommendations or any other9comments
°Use dra► ings of facility to better explain.situations (use additional pages as necessary):
r
orr4 //
r e reJr�
IReviewer/Inspector (Same r Phone: /0
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: li
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 1321-9-1 bi Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents 7.
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Lr
No ❑ NA ElNE
❑ 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 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
i§ NA
❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
IF 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
Otherlssues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
EP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
(] No
❑ NA
ElNE
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
3 1.
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
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

J
Type of Visit 0•Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �C 'C� Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Name• _Mu.✓�� -- Moon QC -
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: k Title:
Ci
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: [=I _
Back-up Operator: IN Jt.2 S
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator ur' 1ou)
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number. 179o3
Location of Farm: Latitude: = o = ' 0 Longitude: = e = C =
ds
Design Current Design
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity
Current Design Current
Population Cattle INLtgap Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
❑ Dairy Calf
Weeder to Finish
2BEf 4
Dry Poultry
❑ La ers
❑ Dairy Heifer
E]Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
El Beef Stocker
Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cowl
iVum er of Structures:
❑ Gilts ❑Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Boars
❑ Turkeys
Other ❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other ❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
i. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
V NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State`? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes
❑ No
(M 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
yn NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
§9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
`P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
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 M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No &NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes
qPNo
❑ 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
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 Apolication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that'need ❑ Yes
IM No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
H. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift [:]Application Outside of Area
_
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
j 9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
It 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
EP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Commeutsl(refer to question #) Explain any YES answers and/or any re: ommendati ns oV any othe Comments
Use drawn s of facili to better ex lain situations. use additional a� eslas�necessaky
.:�
Resiewer/Inspector Name { — - }.: Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 4
12/2 104 Continued

Facility Number: a— Date of InspectionI(1�/r�f f
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes tflNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes � No El NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP [I Checklists ❑Design El maps ❑Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? if yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes (O&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 H No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No RNA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes C No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [DNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 29No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No E!PNA ❑ 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
E3)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
J1No
❑ 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
EpNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
E, No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104

E
Type of Visit �mpliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: .' /3 I Departure Time: �J__._[ County: Region: ZEKQ
Farm Name: _ .jc-- Z. 2= Fairy,-_ Owner Email:
Owner Name: M(l1`;Z1?^� L- L Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: _Gera rs �/` Title: Phone No:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = c = 1 ="
Longitude: 0 ° = = N
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry
Design Current Design
Capacity Fopnlation Cattle Capacity
Current
Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Layer
❑ Dai Cow
Rean to Feeder
❑ Non -La er
❑ Dai Calfeder
to Finish
❑ DairyHeifer
❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers
❑ Gilts ❑ Non -Layers
❑ Boars El Pullets
❑ Turkeys
Other Pouits
❑ D Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
El Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
EllTurke
❑ Other Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
i
❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
aNE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: —
Date of Inspection
i
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA [XNE
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):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA �5NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA EKNE
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 ONE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA Z 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 Z NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA CKNE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[Z Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence or Wind Drift W Application Outside
of Area
12_ Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14_ Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ 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 ?
tA Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
JS NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
W NE
g question
) p Y (�dltt©na1 pages as necessary
or any
Comments, refer to uestion # . Eg Iatn an YEStanswe � „t� # other comments
Use drawings of facili to better explain srtuations use a
aev -rr �rLt,D�C �� �e � p ���
r `P _ rGctl ��"�j��SS ,r v, 4- Ytt7� �►rQ� Q�CcL .
Reviewer/Inspector Name Ii�'r Phone:
Reviewer/inspectorSignature: Date: �5 //—

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection
' Re uired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [HNE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. E9 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
❑ No
❑ NA
BNE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
C9NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
n NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E9NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
JKNE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
CZNE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
ESNE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
® NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
E[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
N No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
p� Cu c� ✓` 4+ fA� a 6 C 37 oAc � � br � 'bxu e_ i�— C/!ZQ L ra, 7 ke 7C*v u r� �—
I/J_ 4; S wQ;5 W
19 r v rrJ.
Ae'_6r__ eoo"J-4,
_3�ek'4 _ -
12128104

Type of Visit 49 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: _0- f Arrival Time: Departure Time: 3
Farm Name: wZ�7 /►9 Own
County: ci 4M 0 01J Region:
er ]Email:
Owner Name- �>�— ?'L�+�%L, C C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: aIw _ „ Title: I Phone No:
K
Onsite Representative: �J integrator: /yf�k Wn., ac
Certified Operator: fi'`�i csMl` Operator Certification Number: OU6-4
10
Back-up Operator:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: = a = = i1 Longitude: 0 ° = d =
gl
Design Currents
Design�ACurrent� Design Current
Swine
ACapacit Population Wet Poultry
Capac ty Populah�on � tittle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish jE1 Layer I
❑ Dairy -Cow
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
O
_ =, ❑ Dairy Heifer
El Farrow to Wean
Dry Poultry
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Farrow to Feeder``
El Non -Dairy
El Farrow to Finish
ElLa Layers
S
El Beef Stocker
❑ Gilts
El No ers
❑Beef Feeder
❑ Boars
ElPullets
Beef Brood Cow
OXAthers
❑Turkeys❑
�] Turkey Points
❑ Other
❑ Other
Number of Structures:
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes IF No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
❑ Yes ❑ No
NA
❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes ❑ No
):m 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 `®No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
12/2"4
Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No A 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 (jjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
(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 ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes IgNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement? ��qq
1. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ElYes 19 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
fof Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area f�
12. Crop type(s) Aa'tux�Ltt V&eat , �n, ""`�Rf-r��W]iC�ns, t a<U �r/Nt.�G�f61 6r 6&J. _�A,rom (A
13. Soil type(s)
r
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
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
f3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name !' J� Phone: d-%?3-33m
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: G%
Page 2 of 3 12128104 Continued

I t
Facility Number: Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 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
F No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑Yes
'b No
❑ NA
[I 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
49 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
b 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
In 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
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
&9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 3 of 3 12128104

VDivision of Water Quality
Facility Number a, 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 'QCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit V Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: FPZ07 County:
Farm Name: —1 cLrr-) l Owner Email:
Owner Name: M �1� 6n2A_-L LL& Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 1 "`- Title:
Onsite-Representative: j C Y Lr
Certified Operator:�K� &.0-ka , �+ �L_,
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Integrator-
— Phono:
M—
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region:
Latitude: E] o =1 Longitude: = U = l = u
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
1 JE1 Non-Layet
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'?
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
��
❑ No NA
❑ NE
❑ No )Rj NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
tqNo
PNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

Facility Number: 75— o
Date of Inspection Z
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier: I
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Structure 5
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Wo ❑ 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 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 ElNA ElNE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10_ Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes A No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or to lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑' Evidence
�o+f Wind Drift ❑ Application
fOutside
,o�f(Arlea f
12. Crop type(s) (� rm tP . Jyrt G ✓ i,S , C.` W—S , 1A) �d ub �'10.b,�CR`/'
13. Soil type(s)
W
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Wo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement'?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?[] Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
IP No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ##): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Reviewer/inspector N
Re0ewer/Inspector Signature:
Date:
1_11Z6/V4 c,onrinueu

Facility Numbe Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes �No
ElNA ElNE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ElYes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropirate box. ❑ 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
NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
JWA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
—9[No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
MVO
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
94)NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
191-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
P� No
ElNA
❑ 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
E
12128104

i
0 Division of Water. Quality
Facility Number O Division of Soil and Water Conservation n
Q Other Agency
E
fVisit ® Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
n for Visit m Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region: Ift
Farm Name: Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: f� Title:
Onsite Representative..1,
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =o =I =" Longitude: =° =I = u
*" Design l- Current
Swore Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
® Feeder to Finish 2Q> tf
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Design. Current D
Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
Dry Poultry
❑ Lavers
❑ 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'?
LJ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3
❑ Yes IMP No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
NA
❑ NE
F] NA
❑ NE
[_1 Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
12128104 Continued

facility Number: to Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
'ANo
❑ 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):
l�
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
FMNo
Lr
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
PNo
❑ 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 RA No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [MNo ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? !!
Waste Application
10. Are there any required butlers, 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 W] 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, WWindow El Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop � Pe(s) rC�M I�1�„fir Lau_r
U. Soil type(s) Ppi _ t& A r L V , tALe
l4. 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
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
`P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
JW No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[jNo ❑NA ONE
J�jNo [I NA ❑NE
.Comments ( refer to q uestaou:#)p y yEz lain an YES answers and/or an recommendations or any other comments
c
a� a -:
.Use drawings of facility to better4egplain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): S
Reviewer/Inspector Name I W a4 Phoneel") 5, .534W
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: Ww a%
Page 2 of 3 12/2&U4 Continued

Facility Number: OR (� Date of Inspection 8 3� GS
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [�lNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists El Design El Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [lNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Waste Application El Weekly Freeboard El Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis El 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
© No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
® 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
[9No
❑ 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
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ief 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
Additional Comments anchor Drawings:
AL
Page 3 of 3 12128104

�F W A rk9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
`O� QG i 2 Le William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
rNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Zi
p Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 1, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
MURPHY FAMILY FARMS
EzZELL FARM
PO Box 759
ROSE HILL, NC 28458
RECEIVED
DEi> R -- FAYEM LLE RMONAI. DFRCE
Subject: Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool
Ezzell Farm
Permit Number NCA282216
Facility 82-216
Sampson County
Dear Sir or Ms.:
The Division's records show that a completed PLAT Form has NOT been submitted for this facility. If
our records are in error please resubmit the completed PLAT Form for this farm.
There is a condition in your Animal Waste Management General NPDES Permit addressing the
completion of the Phosphorous Loss Assessment Tool for your animal feeding operation upon
notification by the Division of Water Quality (Division).
Your NPDES Permit Number NCA282216 Condition I.6 states:
"If prior to the expiration date of this permit either the state or federal government
establishes Phosphorus loss standards that are applicable to land application activities at a
facility operating under this permit, the Permittee must conduct an evaluation of the facility
and its CAW MP under the requirements of the Phosphorus loss standards to determine the
facility's ability to comply with the standards. This evaluation must be documented on
forms supplied or approved by the Division and must be submitted to the Division. This
evaluation must be completed by existing facilities within six (6) months of receiving
notification from the Division.
The method of evaluation is the Phosphorous Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT) developed by NC State
University and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. PLAT addresses four potential loss
pathways: leaching, erosion, runoff and direct movement of waste over the surface. Each field must be
individually evaluated and rated as either low, medium, high or very high according to its Phosphorus
loss potential. The ratings for your farm must be reported to DWQ using the attached certification form.
The PLAT forms must be kept as records on your farm for future reference.
The Division's records show that you received the notification to conduct PLAT on October 14, 2005. To
avoid possible enforcement action for a violation of your permit, The Division of Water Quality requests
that the following items be addressed:
NorthCarolina
Natyra!!y
Aquifer Protection Section 1636 Mail Service Center
Internet: www.ncwater ali .or Location: 2728 Capital Boulevard
An Equal opportunity/Atfirma6ve Action Employer— 50% Recyded110%Post Consumer Paper
Raleigh, NC 27699-1636 Telephone: [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax 1: [phone]
Fax 2: [phone]
Customer Service: [phone]

1. Submit justification for not responding within 180 days of receipt of the PLAT notification
letter.
2. Consult with your technical specialist and submit a written schedule for completing the PLAT
evaluation.
Failure to comply with the above conditions may result in a civil penalty assessment for the facility.
Please be advised that this notice does not prevent the Division of Water Quality from taking enforcement
actions for any past or future violation. Furthermore, the Division of Water Quality has the authority to
levy a civil penalty of not more than $25,000.00 per day per violation.
Please provide this office with a written response on or before September 30, 2006.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me by email at
[e-mail] or by phone at (919) 7I 5-6186 or you may contact the Fayetteville Regional
Office at [phone]. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Duane Leith
Animal Feeding Operations Unit
cc: Fay_ ttevilli.RegionalAffice
Facility File 82-216

I
Type of Visit Vj Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 42rRoutine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: t ad Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name:�'� - -�c7tit Owner Email:
Owner Name: dip �d,. �7��,�s Phone:
Mailing Address: PO 4{.A , iJL Zags-b
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative:.. eatsti,rT_
Certified Operator: 1q
Back-up Operator:
Phone No:
Integrator: -
Operator Certification Number: 1_410
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: [�] e = ' ❑ u Longitude: = ° 0 ' ❑ u
Destgn Current, Design Current Design Current
Swine new Cap ail,',, pulation Wet Poulhy ; Capacity Population Cattle Capaacity Population
EEOF
to Finish ❑ La er ❑ DairyCow
to Feeder ❑Non -La er ❑ Da' Calf
r to Finish❑ Da' Heifer
to WeanPoul❑ D Cow
w to Feeder s"` ` Y._' ` Non-Dairyw to Finish ❑ Beef Stocker
on -La ersPulletsBeef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cow
Turke s � sy❑Turke Poults❑Other Number of Structures:ETI
Discharees & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
9 NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
Cl Yes
❑ No
1 NA
❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes
❑ No
i
NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
❑ Yes
E ,No
❑ NA
❑ NE
other than from a discharge?
12128104
Continued

Facility Number: F _V
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?: V1_6
Designed Freeboard (in): : 0
Observed Freeboard (in): 33
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
through a waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes ®,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes in No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes D� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes 11No
❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA El NE
❑ Yes E4No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes F. No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > l0% or l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area ,Lie
pp `` r
12. Crop type(s) �_y0_UIt a W �a. 11 09k —o1 ror.. A, tk-"'t :" � ha. of �'�-, C.,a _ Q rv► v� � ow ..t9431-t-
13. Soil type(s)-�.r 66 ,5�?�4t�w�,
.
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
iqNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination[:] Yes
C4No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
JKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ZINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Revieweector Name �'t 3+Phone: I{
r/Ins p ' �vdrC- - - -
Reviewer/inspector Signature:
Date: q / pr
12128104 Condnued

Facility Number: gZ — Z10Date of inspection GS
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Wo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [R�qo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the approprrate box. ✓❑ Desi ElWUP ElCheeklis grt�❑ Map❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes KPo ❑ NA El NE
❑ Waste Applicatidv/❑ Weekly Freeboarlt' ❑ Waste Analysis❑ Soil AnalysiVo"❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certificatiod.-'
❑ RainfaWol❑ Stockings.-❑ Crop Yield'"❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspection+—❑ Weather Code4-
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
23. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Other issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
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?
❑ Yes
EgNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
29 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
(9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[R No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
PSNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes [&No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes KINo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
KNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
P§No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
2fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes 9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
12128104

ry
of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
FFacility Number 84 .'� /
Rate of Visit: tr 2/ 3yune: �•� OS
O Not O rational O Below Threshold
LV Permitted 13 Certified © Conditionally Certified O Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: _.
Farm Name: ........... ,7r L 41i�.... r............................................... County:....... !"' 1�!4�........ _...... .. FR-0
Owner Name: Phone No:
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: _._. _.----- Title:................ ............. __------ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: _..e. � ...__. * . �i-. _ ........W ....... ........ Integrator. ^ MU-1 L' . J� l�iu
Certified Operator......w .�............. 4aa,,e� 51_....._.........._ Operator Certification Number:_-- �? g�
Location of Farm:
X Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �' �4 46 Longitude • ° 14
Discharges
& Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. if discharge is observed. did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes q No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes jP No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes j] No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier.......... _...-------- -.•—..................... ................ .......
Freeboard (inches): e7 " t
12112103 Continued

Fadlit;, Number: yr
Date of Inspection (+ ZI
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelmprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancefmprovement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type Rew Gee % Sok#rcaAui, wAc:4. COPAr. 1 RCP#",AQ__ f
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes 1� No
❑ Yes P No
❑ Yes [P No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes KI No
(CAWMP)? ❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
[? No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
[[I No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes [P No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes [ No
❑ Yes P No
Reviewer/Inspector Name;-
ReviewerAnspector Signature: Date..
12112103 d/ - Continued

Facility Number: V,2 _ Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes [ No
22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑ Yes No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes No
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes O No
26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes 11 No
27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes M No
28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes FM No
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes M No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) IN Yes ❑ No
31. if selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes J4No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes [ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 19 No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes W No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
12112103

Division of Soil and Water Conservation 0 Other Agency
Division of Water Quality
1W Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of inspection -Z
Facility Number Z Time of Inspection � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
13 Registered Certified © Applied for Permit *ermitted 13 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name:—,��..%� ... y:....... . . .............................
.....-----�- ` �------� a i':Y1!l� .........---.... ........ Count
Owner Name:....4i :. .. .... G! .tti1..4...L ..............................................Yam —Phone No• .......................................................
.....
Facility Contact:......P..�..,..........�....T....i.t.le: t...y.b...............Phone No•.
................................................... Q ...
Mailing Address:C...1...l!................?� ......
Integrator:...........................................------..Onsite Representatv.
Certified Operator F ....r . Operator Certification Number.......
Location of Farm:
Latitude ' 1 46 Longitude • ` 0"
.. ... ..
-a
k ` Design Current z Design - 'Current " * QSigR urrelit _
S,wme Capacity Population Poultry f` -'Capacity ;Population Cattte Capacity>,Population '•
_ ..
❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer [] Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy°,
❑ Farrow to Wean. ;
A_ ElFarrow to Feeder ❑Others: ,,r�
�,
` ❑ Farrow to Finish Total 13estgr Capacity-'.' .
Gilts
i m
T&il"SSLW `-
,U Nthni r of Lagaoin5 /Holding Ponds ❑Subsurface Drains Present ©Lagoon Area I[]Spray Feld Area
. ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System y ,
ow: ?f.'`.c,�a,v Y �e yk' �,''.` y, --.:; Wr�-'r^b".- �.
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin?
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
mai nten ancelimprovement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes RfNo
❑ Yes XNo
[]Yes KNO
❑ Yes P(No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes oko

Facility Number. — 2141
-
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (LagoonsMolding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I . Stricture 2 Structure 3
Identifier:
Af
Freeboard (ft):......... 0.................................
. 10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes ;(No
❑ Yes KNo
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or off entering waters Wthn State, n ti DI')
15. Crop type . .-N �.J,6.-Qs eJ ��� ePa Berl"+
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (A
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For C
Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes ANo
AYes❑ No
❑ Yes XNO
❑ Yes ANo
? ❑ Yes o
No.vialationsor deficiencies.we.re.noted;dtiring this:visit: Yai><.rvill i-ecei�e.Qo:ftirther:::
: correspQnde[nce about this: visjt:• : - : • ::
❑ Yes ANO
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes f(No
❑ Yes j_No
❑ Yes gNo
❑ Yes KNO
❑ Yes F,No
❑ Yes JNo
0 IZ, . Peed `#a n inS,`r� S�d�e ��" lar- , arm
57o-,1-I j �re es a� o��se S� LL
L'L[ (�
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: al 1 jX Date: y"L •-

kA ❑ DSWC Animal Feedlot Operat on�Rev><ew w-
x e �i� �,� �' � a � "� � "Vc`� #k r&. ,.-x. �c,u ' •• ".aet'� , t ,y�� �' _.�, "� � �� �. �� '` ' ,���+, "'yc.�" w,� -e,. `t "a s� ?� a��. ; p� � �
�� k"� µ{-���� �Q Animal Feedlot Operation>S>tte�Inspec"tion s� �� � �,�.��
outine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 3D 124 hr. (hh:mm)
Total Time (in fraction of hours
Farm Status- 9JR16k"stered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:I.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review !,
W Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing)
❑ Not Operations ate Last Operated: ._................._.... _.... ...... _.-_ _.... ..._..
Farm Name: �y�"�f I ... ....._ ..__ .. � _....__ .. _ .... County. _ �. .....w .............
..._�...
Land Ovw•ner. Name: .
.. ... ,.... .. .............._.... ..._.... hone No: ..._.....
................__......._..__^.............�......._.....-...
Facility Conctact: Title:.�I!�-4. Nu Phone No:
Mailing Address:........ ..... _ ....
Onsite Representative:.. _.... ._..� . ......... .... _ ..... Integrator:
Certified Operator-. (L �, _ ._._ .. ,. Operator Certification Number:
Location of Farm: ��j,� t�r j C_� 6-1— e-A-5 s, `� Ad-J v SL,� l ,� rin N 0
Latitude L� J•4 Longitude ° Du
Type of Operation and Design Capacity
� '' �, f x.hr,t;� Y*cq � -- �^� -��'� c � -� a � -^�z
b "De5xgn�CUrrent* r� eE DeSlgn_ C�lrrent f 3 e rDeSgn�Urrent
Caace o` ulahon Poaltry,„ Ca achy aPo`"blation laiton
Ee m Cah aci Po * u
❑ Wean to Feeder,' LaYer t ❑ D
Feeder to Finish .27 ❑ Non -Layer "" ❑ Non Da
g
,.. Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder T6tit Design CaPac:Ity
Farrow to Finish�� S L f
:..
" ❑ Otherkw
;;�fi ,.�
` Numbei of,I agoons /;Holding Ponds []Subsurface Drains Present
❑ Lagoon Area " Spray Field Area
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated -flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
4/30/97 maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes <o
,U
ElYes lJdNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [I No
❑ Yes U�'No
❑ Yes ago-
Continued

M
Facility Number:..... — ....
,,_,
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
U<(')
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
be
❑ Yes
❑
E 1<0
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to properly closed?
Yes
o
Stirrugstut'es QJagoons agd/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
9 No
Freeboard (ft): Struc 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
-, t_r. ......
.... ._.._..._ _ ... _........
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
l!d'No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
MINo
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
�es
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-I2 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
M 1101
Waste Appliggtign
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
O'110
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop typed .^arm-�_�._C.�x...�7
.... p....__ _..... ......_....
lJ��
_...7 ...
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP). ❑ Yes
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
,[�'�To
NS No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
2<0
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes�o
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
01 00
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
01,01
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes to
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ,_ UN/O
24. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes 01,410
Comments (refer to questioa=#j.} Explain any YES answers' and/or any recommendations"or any other comments: t f,.
Use'drawings of facility to better explain situations' (use additional pages as necessary)
-a2E i„S2 'k` e �,,.. 4
A.a-ft�ev..e. C/.,.i '"`j
?4 3 Y7M L 5 olj_ � "'
AA-;
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: - Date:
cc: Division of Writer Qualit),, Water Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97