960056_INSPECTIONS_20171231

MNMMMMMM�
.d9M
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

INSPECTIONS
INSPECTIONS
INSPECTIONS

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number:
960056 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS960056
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Wayne Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
08/3O/2017 Entry Time: 04:35 pm
Exit Time: 5:25 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
B&P Pig Farm
Owner Email:
- Owner:
Michael E Kirby
Phone:
919-734-4640
Mailing Address:
1498 Antioch Rd
Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address:
1651 Antioch Rd
Pikeville NC 27863
Facility Status:
0Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Integrator: Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 35' 29' 46" Longitude:
77° 53'.18"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby Operator Certification Number: 19408
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representatives): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Justin K Davis Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby. Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/17 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for -Visit: Routine
Waste Report N
7-24-17
2.11
5-4-17
2.06
3-13-17
3.78
11-23-16
1.81
10-5-16
0.54
8-26-16
1.91
Soil Report
due 2019
Calibration due
2017
Lagoon Sludge Survey 11-27-2016
LTZ 5.4
T 2.3
PI 4.7
page: 2

Permit: AWS960056 Owner -Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 3,200
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 36.00
page: 3

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
0 ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
0 ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
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?
❑ ❑ ❑
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: 4

Permit: AWS960056 Owner -Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
El
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
M ❑
❑
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 Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
M ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
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: 5

1I :'
Permit: AWS960056 Owner -Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/17 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
M ❑
❑
(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
❑
E ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface 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 Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
page: 6

M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
960056 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS960056
❑ Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Wayne Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
08/30/2016 EntryTime: 01:30 pm
Exit Time: 2:10 pm Incident #
Farm Name:
B&P Pig Farm
- Owner Email:
Owner:
Michael E Kirby
Phone:
919-734-4640
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address: 1651 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35° 29' 46"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Longitude: 77' 53' 18"
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby Operator Certification Number: 19408
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name . Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone] '
Primary Inspector: Justin K Davis Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Report
N
7-11-16
1.75
4-26-16
3.49
2-2-16.
1.94
12-1-15
1.94
9-24-15
2.26
Soil Report 2016 Due 2019
Zn<350
Cu<220
Calibration 12/4/2015
Due 2017.
Lagoon Sludge Survey 11-26-2015
Due 2016
LTZ 5.0
Thickness 2.7
Pump Intake 5.0
page: 2

W
Permit: AWS960056 Owner- Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/16 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Swine
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 2,800
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 31.00
page: 3

Permit: AWS960056
Owner - Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/16 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)
❑
M ❑
❑
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑
01111
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the
❑
0 ❑
❑
State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No Na Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large
❑
� ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
0 ❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
0 ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑M ❑ ❑
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%/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: 4

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
M ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
EEI
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 5

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/30/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
E]
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
E ❑
EJ
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
N ❑
ED
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?
❑
❑
Q
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
E ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na Ne
28. Did the facility fail to propedy dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
E ❑
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 concem? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
0
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
E ❑
Q
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 ❑
Q
CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
0 ❑
El
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
E ❑
0
page: 6

T
Division of Water Resources
❑
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑
Other Agency
Facility Number:
960056
Facility
Status: Active Permit:
AWS960056
❑ Denied Access
Inppection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Dale:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Wayne
Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
09/03/2015 Entry Time:
02:00 pm Exit Time: 2:45 pm
Incident #
Farm Name:
B&P Pig Farm
Owner Email:
Owner:
Michael E Kirby
Phone:
919-734-4640
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address: 1651 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Facility Status: Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35° 29' 46"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Longitude: 77° 53' 18"
Question Areas:
® Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
® Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby Operator Certification Number: 19408
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): 'Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Justin K Davis Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary
page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 09/03/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Report N
7-22-15
1.92
5-14-15
2.46
2-27-15
1.47
1-3-15
1.93
10-1-14
1.15
7-24-14
1.93
5-7-14
3.12
3-6-14
3.32
Soil Report 2-4-13
Zn<260
Cu<200
Lagoon Sludge Survey 11-28-14
LTZ-5.3
Thickness-2.4
Pump Intake-5.5
Calibration 11-22-13
Crop Yield 910 square bails of hay in 2015.
Rainfall, Freeboard, and Pumping Records coincide.
page: 2

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 09/03/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 I 2,897
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 31.00
page: 3

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 09/03/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No Na Ne
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
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)
❑
N ❑
❑
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)
❑
e ❑
❑
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 No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
®❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
■ ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
N ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable
❑
®❑
❑
to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑
■ ❑
❑
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ ®❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ ®❑ ❑
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: 4

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 09/03/15 . Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na No
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste
❑
■ ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
0 ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
N ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
N ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
i ❑
❑
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?
❑
O ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 5

u
Permit: AWS960056 Owner- Facility : Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 09/03/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na No
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
®❑
❑
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
❑
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28, Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
®❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑M
❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
®❑
❑
(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
❑
❑
❑
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?
❑
! ❑
❑
page: 6

r
e
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 960056 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS960056 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wayne Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 04/16/2014 Entry Time: 10:45 AM Exit Time: 11:15 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: B&P Pia Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Michael E Kirby Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address: 1651 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35029'46" Longitude: 77053'18"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19408
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Ronnie T Smith
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Date:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner • Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 04/16/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
WuP 11/20/13
Waste Analysis N
3/6114 = 3.32
1/14/14 = 2.70
1/7114 = 2.27
9/3/13 = 1.95
Soil Test 2/4113
"'due again 2016"'
Cu & Zn levels Win range
L=OT
Crop yield record reviewed
irrigation calibration 11/22/13
"'due again 2015"`
Sludge Survey 11/22/13
thickness = 2.1
LTZ = 5.6
pump intake = 4.7
"'due again 2014"'
irrigation records correspond to rainfall & lagoon records
crop yield reviewed
Page: 2

3
Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 04/16/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 2,545
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
TVDe Identifier Glnead Data Start nata Freehnard FroahnaM
agoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 27.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number:
960056
Inspection Date: 04/16/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ 0011
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 State other than
❑ ■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No
NA
NE
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 (Led 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 to roofed pits,
❑ ■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application Yes No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need 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)? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS960056 Owner- Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 04/16/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
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?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Exum
Soil Type 2
Aycock
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑ ■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
NE
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?
000
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number:
960056
Inspection Date: 04/16/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Others
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
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?
❑ ■
❑
❑
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 PDA 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?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Page: 6

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 04116/2014 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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 Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 7

0 Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 960056 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS960056 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wayne Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 08/06/2013 Entry Time: 11:45 AM Exit Time: 12:15 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: B&P Pig Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Michael E Kirby Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address: 1651 Antioch Rd
Pikeville NC 27863
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude:
3502946" Longitude: 77053'18"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby
Operator Certification Number: 19408
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
24 hour contact name Brent Mitchell
Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Brent Mitchell
Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Ronnie T Smith
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/06/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis N
5/28/13 = 2.47
3/25/13 = 4.14
1/18/13 = 2.64
12/24/12 = 2.31
Soil Test 2/4/13
"due again 2014"
L = 0.9T
Cu & Zn levels w/in range
Wup 1/20/12
"due again 2013"
thickness = 2.4
LTZ = 5.3
pump intake = 5.0
irrigation calibration 9/30/11
"due again 2013"
irrgiation records correspond to rainfall & lagoon records
crop yield records reviewed
Page: 2

Permit: AWS960056
Inspection Date: 08/06/2013
Regulated Operations
Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 2,704
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 37.00
Page: 3

Permit:AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/06/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
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 State other than ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? 11000
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 to roofed pits,
❑ ■
❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑ ■
❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is'there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ MOO
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number:
960056
Inspection Date: 08/06/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
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?
❑
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Exum
Soil Type 2
Aycock
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Wagram
Soil Type 5
Craven
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■
❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 08/06/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
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?
❑
000
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 PDA 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?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Permit: AW5960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 08/06/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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 Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ®- ® 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 4D Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
val Time:
Departure Time: County: I/�!/ Region:
Mrri
Farm Name:
Owner Email:
Owner Name:
4P
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Al ac
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:„ p1�L 1 Title:
Onsite Representative: 20.k. l
Certified Operator: '%Q , Gi ec ekq
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
can to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: L
Certification Number: /y6e
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
1 j� I La er
700 Non -La er
Pullets
Design Current
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[—]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: 's - Date of Inspection: 3
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):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ 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
U 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 environmenta hreat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
ElYes
N
❑ 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
[Z(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
[:]Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
t t9
man enance or mprovemen .
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 21NO ❑ 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): L M4. kC� .2i!2j MfA"S. //0
13. Soil Type(s): -
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑Yes❑
NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes2NWo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
d o
❑ 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
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
VNNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes 0� ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? [:]Yes 05; e ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412011 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 'dNo NA NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check M Yes F'rN(o NA NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
Fj Failure to complete annual sludge survey Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
El 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 NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? Yes No NA n NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document Yes No NA NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
Yes
VNo
NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
Yes
No
NA
NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Yes
No
NA
NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
Yes
<o
ONA
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
EfNo
❑ NA
NE
Comments (refer to question #(): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
l�u P (�iA . re c..ezis
Avxc;' t S k S /_%
COC --4lh ro�_
Wu g4e_ C170,45 1!55
qA
� � 0►.1-► 20l Z 7�— oJc.� cZ y� Zd/ Z�-
4 2� �Q-c Ls w/� ^ r,�,, '
zo &-eA i, -4e /W/ T( t AT -7
h -r eye. 01'I.
reeds sad 4
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
at
V
zn
�k�
*d4lz_ a5 h?.01.2+
Phone: ncn- - ✓tTV
Date: 15 C 312,
21412011

E Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 960056 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS960056 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wayne Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 07/12/2011 Entry Time:12745 PM Exit Time: 01:30 PM Incident #:
Farm Name: B&P Pig Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Michael E Kirby Phone: 919-734A640
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address: 1651 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35029'46" Longitude: 77°53'18"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby Operator Certification Number: 19408
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Ronnie T Smith
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Date:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 07/12/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
WUP Dated 1/20/11
Soil Test 2010
New CoC in records
"due again 2011"
Cu & Zn levels Win range
Waste Analysis N
Deep L = 1.9 & 1.2 T
5/25/11 = 3.1
3/9/11 = 3.8
Sludge Survey 9/8/10
2/1/11 = 2.6
"due again 2011"
12/2/10 = 2.1
thickness = 3.5
LTZ = 4.85
40.7%
irrigation calibration 9/28/09
"due again in 2011"
irrigation records corresponds to rainfall & lagoon records.
**Bermuda extension til 10/18/10**
crop yield records reviewed
Page: 2

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 07/12/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 3,044
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 32.00
Page: 3

' Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number:
960056
Inspection Date: 07/12/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
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 State other than
❑
■
❑
❑
from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
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 (l.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 to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need 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)?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 07/1212011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
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?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Aycock
Soil Type 2
Exum
Soil Type 3
Norfolk
Soil Type 4
Wagram
Soil Type 5
Craven
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■
❑
❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
❑
■
❑
❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■
❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■
❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 07/12/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? ❑
Other? ❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
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?
❑ ■
❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑ 000
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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

. 11 Permit: AWS960056
Inspection Date: 07/12/2011
Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■
❑
❑
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA
NE
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report
❑
■
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, 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?
❑
■
❑
❑
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 Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 960056 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS960056 El Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wayne Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 09/29/2010 Entry Time:12730 PM Exit Time: Incident #:
Faun Name: B&P Pia Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Michael E Kirby Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address: 1651 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35029'46" Longitude: 77053'18"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby Operator Certification Number: 19408
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Mike Kirby Phone:
On -site representative Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 09/29/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis: soil test:
8/4/10 = 1.7 1/2010
5/27/10 = 2.9
4/01/10 = 1.6
1/25/10 = 2.3
equipment calibration in 2009
sludge survey 2010
Freeboard range: 2/6/10 = 22" - 7/31/10 = 36"
Need to calculate % of sludge.
C = 131, SB = 137, W = 125, BH = 274/296/202/174, SG = 50/100
Looks good!
Page: 2

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 09/29/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 1 1 19.00 31.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 09/29/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number : 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No
NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ■
❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑ ❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le./ large 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 to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need 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)? ❑
Page: 4

n
Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number:
960056
Inspection Date: 09/29/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No
NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal
Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
UEDO
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■
❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AW5960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number
: 960056
Inspection Date: 09/29/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
O
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
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?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
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 phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
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 those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 09/29/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Otherlssues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
D■❑❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 960056 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS960056 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wayne Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 10/08/2009 Entry Time:03:00 PM Exit Time:
Farm Name: B&P Pip Farm
Owner: Michael E Kirby
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address: 1651 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator. Maxwell Foods Inc
Location of Farm:
Phone: [phone]
Latitude:35°29'46" Longitude:77°53'18"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19408
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Megan H Stilley Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 10/08/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
New COC and Permit in records
Waste Analysis 9-2-09 2.0
6-24-09 2.4
4-24-09 3.2
3-13-09 3.0
Soil test 3-2-09 with highest lime 1.1 tons
Cu and Zn values within range
Freeboard and Rainfall complete and correspond with irrigation
Sludge Survey 8-26-09 Thick-2.44'
LTZ-5.56' } Need pump intake measurement next time
Calibration 9-28-09 with 55 GPM
21)Sludge removed in April 2009 - No current sludge analysis for removal
Page: 2

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 10/08/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
O Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 2,945
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
lagoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 37.00
Page: 3

9
Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 10/08/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts Yes No NA NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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? 0000
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a 0000
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑ 000
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
❑ 000
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 to roofed pits,
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ ■ ❑ Cl
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 4.

s
Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 10/08/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil? -
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
Cl
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
■ ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS960056 Owner -Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 10/08/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
■
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
■
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
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?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
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 phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑ ■ ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No NA NE
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 those ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 10/08/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 960056 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS960056 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wayne Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 06/12/2008 Entry Time:03:27 PM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: B&P Pig Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Michael E Kirby Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd' Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
Integrator: Goldsboro Hog Farms Inc
Latitude:35°29'46" Longitude:77°53'18"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 19408
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
On -site representative Brent Mitchell Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Eric Newsome
Inspector Signature: _
Secondary Inspector(s):
Phone:
Date:
Page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 06/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Saw CoC and Permit.
WARS (lbsN/1000gall): 5/2108-3.8, 2/1/08-2.9, 12/21/07-2.6, 10/31/07-1.8, 8/15107-2.2, 6/11/07-3.3.
Soil test results (2/15/08): 4.6 tons/acre lime required (sample NG1); Znl-1039, Cut-580. Lime to be applied this year.
2008 IRR1/2 (Rye): Pulls 3-4.
2007 IRR112 (CBH): Pulls 1-3; (CBP): Pulls 7-8; (SB): Pulls 9-10.
PAN rates met and balanced. Pumping volumes of irrigation events were consistent with changes in freeboard levels. Rainfall
records were adequate.
2007 sludge survey results (1014/07): LTZ= 6.26', Thick= 1.88'
2007 calibration results (10/1/07): 0.71" ring, 50 psi @gun. 60gpm expected, 60gpm measured.
Crop yields seen: 2007-157 bales of overseed, 553 bu of wheat, 272 bu of SB, and 95 bales of BH. 2008-99 bales of rye, 120 bales
of BH.
Page: 2

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 06/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 2,903
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
-agoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 26.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 06/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ ■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑ ■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑ ■
❑
Cl
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 Waters of the State other than from a ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No NA NE
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 (Led 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 to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
❑
■
❑
0
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)?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael F Kirby
Inspection Date: 06/1212008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P205?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Aycock
Soil Type 3
Exum
Soil Type 4
Wagram
Soil Type 5
Craven
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? 0 ■ ❑ 0
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
0 ■ 0
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 06/12/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists?
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Other? ❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Annual soil analysis?
❑
Crop yields?
❑
Stocking?
❑
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
❑
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)?
❑ n
■
❑
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 phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ ❑
■
❑
Otherlssues
Yes No
NA
NE
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 those
❑ IN
❑
❑
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
❑ ❑
n
■
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

0
Permit: AWS960056
Inspection Date: 06/12/2008
Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑■❑p
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑■❑❑
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency ____
Facility Number: 960056 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS960056 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wayne Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 04/12/2007 Entry Time:11:00 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: B&P Pig Farm Owner Email:
Owner: Michael E Kirby Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address: Facility Status: n Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°29'46" Longitude: 77°53'18"
Take Hwy 111 N from Goldsboro, Make right on SR 1535 (Antioch Rd), Farm is about 1 mile on right
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby Operator Certification Number: 19408
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Mike Kirby Phone:
24 hour contact name Mike Kirby Phone:
Primary Inspector: Megan Hartwell Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 04/12/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Need copy of COC - will send a copy
Waste Analysis 3-2-07 4.1
2-21-07 4.6
2-14-07 4.3
12-4-06 2.3
`There was irrigation outside split application window for small grain. There was a letter from an agronomist giving permission to pump
because of the wet winter conditions.
'Make sure to records freeboard weekly
Crop yield complete 2006
Sludge survey complete 5-10-06 thick-1.8' LTZ-6.64'
Calibrations complete 9-22-06
PLAT complete 9-7-06 - no fields high
Soil samples 1-5-06 with highest lime 4.2 tons
Cu and Zn values within range
Page: 2

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 04/12/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations
Design Capacity
Current Population
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 2,075
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Tvpe Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 25.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 04/12/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
■
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
■
❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
■
❑
❑
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
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 Waters of the State other than from a
❑
■
❑
❑
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment
Yes
No
NA
NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
■
❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
IF,
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 to roofed pits,
❑
■
❑
❑
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
■
❑
❑
improvement?
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need 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)? ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 04/12/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No
NA
NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
D
Total P205?
D
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
Outside of acceptable crop window?
D
Evidence of wind drift?
Application outside of application area?
171
Crop Type 1
Crop Type 2
Crop Type 3
Crop Type 4
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Soil Type 4
Soil Type 5
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
D
■
D
D
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
D
■
D
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? D
■
D
D
.17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
D
■
D
D
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
D
■
D
D
Records and Documents
Yes
No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
D
■
D
D
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
D
■
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
D
Page: 5

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 04/12/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? n
Design? n
Maps? n
Other? In
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
n
120 Minute inspections?
n
Weather code?
n
Weekly Freeboard?
n
Transfers?
n
Rainfall?
n
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
fl
Waste Analysis?
n
Annual soil analysis?
n
Crop yields?
n
Stocking?
n
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
fl
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
n
■
n n
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
n
■
n n
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
■
n n
25, Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
n
■
El 0
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
n
■
n ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
n
■
n n
Other Issues
Yes
No
NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
❑
■
n n
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
n
■
n n
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
n
n
❑ ■
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 04/1212007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Other Issues
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewrinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
n■D❑
n■nn
n■nn
Page: 7

Division of Water Quality
n Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 960056 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS960056 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Wayne Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 07/14/2006 Entry Time:09:40 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: B&P Pia Farm
Owner Email:
Owner: Michael E Kirby
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: 1498 Antioch Rd
Pikeville NC 27863
Physical Address:
Facility Status: n Compliant n Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude:
35029'46" Longitude: 77053'18"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment
Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Michael E Kirby
Operator Certification Number: 19408
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
Title Phone
On -site representative George Pettus
Phone:
24 hour contact name George Pettus
Phone:
Primary Inspector: Joseph Gyamfi
Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 07/14/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
• CoC & Permit on site
` WUP dated 3/25/2003
• Waste Analysis:
6/28/06 = 3.6
5/17/06 = 4.0
5/3/06 = 4.1
3/13/06 = 3.8
12/20/05 = 2.8
• Soil test report dated 1/5/06, Lime to be applied in September 2006 before Small Grain is overseded on Coastal Bermuda.
` Reviewed waste application records, complete and balanced with Weather codes and inspection initials.
. Lagoon levels recorded weekly. Changes in levels are consistent with pumping and precipitation events.
• Rainfall recorded with initials.
• Remember to complete irrigation calibration & sludge survey by 9/30/2006.
• Reviewed crop yield records.
• Copy of animals inventory in notebook.
. Farm & Records well kept
Page: 2

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 07/14/2006
Regulated Operations
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Design Capacity
Reason for Visit: Routine
Current Population
Swine
Swine - Wean to Feeder 3,200 3,200
Total Design Capacity: 3,200
Total SSLW: 96,000
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon PRIMARY 07/08/94 19.00 32.00
Page: 3

0
Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 07/14/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yes
No
NA
NE
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
n
■
n
n
Discharge originated at:
Structure
n
Application Field
n
Other
n
a. Was conveyance man-made?
n
■
n
n
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
n
■
n
n
c. Estimated volume reaching surface waters?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
n
■
n
n
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? n ■ n n
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to Waters of the State other than from a n ■ n n
discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage & Treatment Yes No NA NE
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? ❑ ■ n n
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard? n
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large trees, severe
❑
■
❑
n
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management
n
■
n
n
or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
n
■
n
n
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
n
■
n
n
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
n
■
n
n
improvement?
Waste Application Yes
No
NA
NE
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or
n
■
n
n
improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
n
■
n
n
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
n
Hydraulic Overload?
n
Frozen Ground?
n
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
n
Page: 4

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 07/14/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
D
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
D
Total P205?
D
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
D
Outside of acceptable crop window?
n
Evidence of wind drift?
D
Application outside of application area?
D
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 2
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Small Grain Overseed
Crop Type 4
Corn, Wheat, Soybeans
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Norfolk
Soil Type 2
Wagram
Soil Type 3
Craven
Soil Type 4
Exum
Soil Type 5
Aycock
Soil Type 6
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management
D ■
D
D
Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
D ■
D
D
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?
D ■
D
D
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
D ■
D
D
1 B. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
D ■
D
D
Records and Documents
Yes No
NA
NE
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
D ■
D
D
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
D ■
D
D
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Page: 5

Permit: AWS960056 Owner- Facility: Michael E Kirby
Inspection Date: 07/14/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
WUP?
Checklists?
Design?
Maps?
Other?
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Facility Number: 960056
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
n
n
n
n
n
n■nn
Waste Application?
n
120 Minute inspections?
n
Weather code?
n
Weekly Freeboard?
n
Transfers?
n
Rainfall?
n
Inspections after > 1 inch rainfall & monthly?
n
Waste Analysis?
n
Annual soil analysis?
n
Crop yields?
n
Stocking?
Annual Certification Form (NPDES only)?
n
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
n
■ n n
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES only)?
n
n ■ n
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
n
n n ■
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
n
n n ■
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
n
■ n n
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
n
n ■ n
Otherlssues
Yes
No NA NE
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
n
■ n n
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those
❑
■ n n
mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
Page: 6

Permit: AWS960056 Owner - Facility: Michael E Kirby
Facility Number: 960056
Inspection Date: 07/14/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air
Quality representative immediately.
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Yes No NA NE
n■nn
n■nn
n■nn
n■nn
Page: 7

Facility Number 96 56 Date of Visit: 10-13 2004 Time: 820
0 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .......... . ...
Farm Name: bi&P..P.ig.k:airtp.......................... ........... County: !'1'.ay:ne........... ....__........ ........ _. \'4'A](i.O.......
OwnerName: lMCIIael.................................. K1.I:b3..................... _.................................. _ Phone No: 9].9:I.34:.4.G.4.R_...... _.................. _..................... _.
MailingAddress: 1.4.9B.t.1.t1.tiQftk1Ad.........................................___......_._..................._ ! G................._......__....._.......__..... 2.7.@63....... _.....
FacilityContact: ................................................ .......................... _. Title: ......... ........... __.............. ___... _........ Phone No:
Onsite Representative: C.axi.YisbY..............................................................••-••••••••-••-••-• Integrator:Goldsko�r.R.1�_as.F�ztA.S........... _................ ........
Certified Operator: MicIlAcI la ............................. Kirby .......... .—.................................. Operator Certification Number:l.9_408__......... _............
Location of Farm:
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 29 46 Longitude 77 • 53 18
Design Current
Swine Cnnnrity Pnnnlatinn
0 Wean to Feeder
3200
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons 1
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy1 ::=]
❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 3,200
Total SSLW 96,000
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 ® No
3. Were there.any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 0 No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ®No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: .................................. _....... ... ............................ _.._.
Freeboard (inches): 36"
12112103 Continued

..) .
Facility Number: 96-56 Date of Inspection 10.13 2004
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑yes ®No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ®No
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ®No
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ®No
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 30(
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Overseed Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No
Air Quality representative immediately.
Coents (refer to question #) Explain any YES.an'swers and/or any recommendations o�r any
mmot6et comments
Use drawings of,facthty to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary) ❑Field Copy El Final Notes °'•.,,
Records available for review
Waste Analysis: 8-25-04 = 2.0 lbs
7-15-04 = 2.3 lbs
5-11-04 = 2.9 lbs
4-22-04 = 3.4 lbs
4-8-04 = 3.8 lbs
2-11-04 = 2.5 lbs
1-30-04 = 3.3 lbs
11-4-03 = 2.5 lbs
10-15-03 = 3.9 lbs
8-11-03 = 3.1 lbs
Soil analysis - dated 1-7-04 - serves for year 2003 analysis lime was applied in May `04
Make sure to pull samples for this year-2004
Reviewer/Inspector Name Lyn B. Havdisoo _ t
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
12112103
Date:
Continued

Facility Number. 96-56
Date of Inspection 10.13 2004
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
® No
26.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
®No
27.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
®No
28.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
29.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30.
Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35)
❑ Yes
®No
31.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑Yes
El No
32.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑Yes ❑ No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? El Yes ❑ No
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After I" Rain
❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
kdditional Comments and/or Drawings:
hall grain overseed has been planted.
:ed to consult with you Technical Specialist to make sure the PAN and crops are correct with actual crop in the
;ids and double check the IRR2's
eeboard levels and rainfall are recorded.
)ntact me with any corrections you may make to the VAR.
you have any questions, contact your Technical Specialist or us @ 252-946-6481 or me directly 252-948-3842.
12112103

f.Water. Quality
E Soil and. Rater Conservation-
I 'y
Tvpe of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
(Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access I
Facility Number 96 56 Date of Visit: 12-09-2003 Time: 1440
0 Not O erational O Below Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified 0 Conditionally Certified i] Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
FarmName:]R&EPle.ka]Cm.............................................................................................. County: WAy.11c ............................................... !'FARO........
Owner Name: B ichael.................................. yjx.by ........................................................... Phone No: 919: 734.-4fi4Q...........................................................
MailingAddress: l49#.AAdQsh.Rd................................................................................. P C.Alle...NC......................................................... 2.7.863 ..............
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Earl.Kk.by.................................................................................... Integrator: G..Qld5bQx.QffQgFArxU......................................
Certified Operator:J,!'IirhAelE ............................. WrIly ................................................ Operator Certification Number:19.408 .............................
Location of Farm: _
7146
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 29 46 " Longitude F 77 53 18
Design Current
Swine Capacity Ponulation
® Wean to Feeder
3200
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Ca ac1tv Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 3,200
Total SSLW 96,000
Number of Lagoons i� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present [0 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps =:� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System .
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge.
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: .....................
Freeboard (inches): 28"
nCIA amr
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes
❑ No
[]Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 6
.............................

v✓i v✓i vi
Facility Number: 96-56
Date of Inspection 12-09-2003
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Aanlication
a VIISUHacu
a
❑ Yes
B No
❑ Yes
B No
❑ Yes
B No
❑ Yes
B No
❑ Yes
B No
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes B No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload [ []"Yes B No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Small Grain Overseed Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes B No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
B No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
B No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
B No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
B No.
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
B No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
B No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
B No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
El Yes
B No
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
B No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
B No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
B No
113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer4toKgtieshon #) Explatn�anx YESnanswers and/or aay cecommendationsior any othe comments n
V ti 1
do ngs of facility betterueap7aincsrtuahons (u'se additional pages as inecessary) ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
-Z,r
,+� 4:,+.. .:;. r in7e..... _. ,.—h.. __ _..e-, -+.,. .c. ,.•.� .r _.n.. .ry c. :9.fi _.�;.. _-sn....�. ..^^m..;."`.C,. ,.-z--a•—,—,x..r
Records available for review.
Waste Analysis: 11/4/03 2.501bs
10/15/03 3.901bs
8/11/03 3.10lbs
6/4/03 2.901bs
4/17/03 3.10lbs
2/26/03 3.70lbs
hr
Reviewer/Inspector Name Lyn._B rdison .:.,, ... w
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

05103101 Conibrued
FacEity Number. 96-56 Date of Inspection 12-09-2003
c
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon?
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a pemmauent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
omments and/or Drawingn,
Soil analysis available up thru 2002
Soil samples for 2003 are @ NCDA Laboratory
Lime was put out in June 2003
Irrigation records are complete and balanced out.
Spray fields are shared with fac. # 96-57 which is adjacent,
AN balances are transferred between IIR2 records of both farms. This is documented on the IRR 1.
Vegetation on dike wall is well established.
Practice weed control in spray fields and on dike wall.
Freeboard levels are recorded weekly.
Suggest to uss the IRR 2 form from teh NPDES guidances - one IRR2 form per field and the lagoon is identified on
e forms (either fac. 96-56 or 96-57) .

_1
Facility Number Date of Visit: F-3/27/2002 Time: 812
I ro-M77per—aMonal 0 Below 'I'hre
a Permitted E Certified a Conditionally Certified a Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: B&P Pig Farm County:Wayne ................................................ . Walko ........
Owner Name: Michael Kirby Phone No: 919-734-4640
Mailing Address: 149.8.Antio.ch.Rd .................................................................................. Pikevilk..NC .......................................................... 278.6a ..............
FacilityContact: ............................................................................... Title: ............................................................... Phone No:....................................................
Onsite Representative: CarMrby,.Geiargp..P.eitus.Iffike.Kirb.y ...................... Integrator: .Goldshum.Hog.Farms .......................................
Certified Operator: Michad.E ........................... Kirby................................................. Operator Certification Number: 19.40.8 ............................
Location of Farm:
® Swine E3 Poultry E3 Cattle E3 Horse Latitude Longitude
Swine Capacity.Population
can to Feeder
3200
1600
eeder to Finish
arrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow
103to Finish
0
0
0 Boars
Design -Current -Design Current
Poultry Capacity- population Cattle Capacity Population
[3 ayer il r[] Dairy
E3
E
J❑Non-Layer L E3 Non -Dairy
JE3 Other I I
Total Design Capacity 31200
Total SSLW 96,000=
Number of Lagoons JE3 Subsurface Drams resent E3 Lagoon Area jE-3-Spray l7ieI=rei
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps E== JE3 No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? E3 Yes X No
Discharge originated at: E3 Lagoon [3 Spray Field [3 Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [3 Yes j3 No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) E3 Yes E3 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 E3 No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? [3 Yes ®No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? [3 Yes ®No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? E3 Spillway 0 Yes M No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
................................... ................................... I ................................... ........................ I ......... ............ I ...................... ...................................
Freeboard(inches): ............... 26 ............... .................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................

Facility um er: 96-56 Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes N No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? p Yes R No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding p PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
p Yes
U No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Hay) Small Grain Bermuda Pasture Corn, Soybeans, Wheat
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
p Yes
®No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
Ig No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
g No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
p Yes
H No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
p Yes
®No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
p Yes
N No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
N No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
® No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
p Yes
®No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
f] Yes
®No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
® No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
N No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
®No
in No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments refer to qu6tion Ex lain any YES answers and/or-any-recommendations:or any other comments.
Use drawmgs-of facility to better explainsituations (use additional pages as necessary) ,_ Field ^Copy p Final Notes
Records available for review.
Waste analysis 1/31/02 = 3.1 lbs.; 12/5/01 = 3.5 lbs.; 10/1/01 = 2.5 lbs.; 8/1/01 = 2.4 lbs.
Soil analysis up through 2001available. Lime was put out in 2/2001.
Make sure to pull soil samples for this year.
Irrigation records are complete and balanced out.
PAN is transferred between this farm and farm #96-57
Freeboard levels are recorded weekly as required. (SEE PAGE 3)
Reviewer/InspectorName Lyn B Hj�ardi_son enteredbyAnn;Tyndall -. -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: -� _ ,+ � l Date: 4/-- yz{) Z

I'N
O5103101
Continued
aci ity Number: 96_56
Odor Issues
Date of Inspection
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes p No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? p Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, p Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? p Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) p Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? p Yes ®No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes p No
Vegetation on dike wall is well established.
Small grain is established.
Note: To complete review of irrigation records, you must review records from 96-57 with this farm to follow
applied PAN.
If you determine it would be simpler to separate the records, it will be fine with DWQ.
If you have any questions, contact your Technical Specialist or us at 252-946-6481.
T

Water
_.....
O D"i-oi n of Soil and Water Conservation'
Oocherngency N-S Yy
p
Type of Visit OO Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
l
Facilih Number 96 56 [ Date of Visit: 1 6 29-21100 Time 1445 Printed on: 2232001
t
�Not tional O Below Threshold
(3 Permitted K Certified ❑ Conditionath Certified Ej Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:
FarmName: B,S . _...._._.._..__..._..-.-....-.........._...._...._.......... County: W. ..ayue............_.. ......................... -••-.. W..a$Q_......
Owner Name: Mchaeh...__.__.__._ KilrbPhone No: 9J9-7.ft9Q_.............. ...............
Facility Contact: ............Y.... .r.... Title: ... ........... ................. _................_......... Phone No:.......... -
Mailing Address: 1498_....._--- —......._...__.._ P.ikei!Ue-NC'.................................... _.................... 7.78.63 .......
Onsite Representative: Carl.Iairkj:..Gett�ge.Ferrara.-.... _................ _... .................
-. Intet,ratnr: Goldshoro.Hng.FarnolS
Certified Operator: MiCbaeLL-.--.-._....- _... Kiiltt:.. ........... _.__........_. Operator Certification Number. 1QQQ8- .....................
.--- ....
Location of Farm:
® Swine [IPoultry ❑ Cattle [IHorse Latitude 35 i• 29 46 L �mtitudc 77 • 53 18
Design Current: '': Design Current Design < 'Current::'
Swine
Ca acitc Population Pouftry Caitacih Pooulatinn Cattle
�® Wean to Feeder
3200
3200
�❑ Feeder to Finish
J❑ Farrow- to Wean
J❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow- to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons . ' ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ 1,agoan Arer 10 Spray Fietd Area
Holding Ponds:/ Solid Traps❑ No Liquid Waste Management S\ stero
Discharaes d Stream Impacts
l . Is any discharge observed from asv part of the operation?
❑ Yes
9 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. li•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. II discharge is observed- what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
n/a
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon iv stem" (ifyes. notih- D\VQ)
❑Yes
Zi No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No
3 - Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
g No
Waste Collection A Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
❑ Yes
0.. No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Strucntre 4 Sin!cture i
Structure 6
Identifier:
reeboard(incbezz):..........._..34.._.................................................................................................. ........

5/00
Continued on back
Facility- Number. 96-56 Date of Inspection 6-29-2000
Printed on: 2/23/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees. severe erosion.
❑ Yes
21 No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
91 No
(If any of questions 4.6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notifi- DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
Z No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
Z No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
g No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelrmprovement?
❑ Yes
® No
H. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
®No
12. Crop type Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
1g, No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
® No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
g No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readil • available?
(ie/ WI P. checklists; desi:m. maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
g, No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
[K No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
No
22. Fail to uotifi• regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
® No
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
Yj No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
_No violations or'deficiencies were�uoted:during this�visit.. You w1t11:receive no further','--'
correspondence about this. visit.' • . .:. :: .::. :: :.: : ::. .:. : . : : . : .
Records available for review.
Waste samples are collected within the permit requirements.
Soil analysis for 1999 available. Secure samples for yr 2000 by Dec. 2000. Lime was applied.
Irrigation records are being kept per new WUP and by pulls. There are some residual entries on the HM from the
d WUP and there are some fields that were shared with fac. 96-57. This was accounted for in both WUPs.
Freeboard records are up to date, recorded weekly.
Lagoon levels remained compliant thru/ou t the hurricane season and afterwards. CONT. P 3
Re-dewer/Inspector Name

Y LRejlewer/lnspector Signature: Date: 5/00
Facility Number. 96-56 Date of Inspection 6-29-2000 Printed on: 2232001
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/brhielow ❑ Yes ® No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt. ❑ Yes E, No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray .system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ® No
The new WUP is written on actual wetted acres therefore this farm is exempted from the wetted ac. requriements.
The grounds are well kept.
you have any questions, contact me @ 252-946-6481" ext. 318.

Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Farm Status: 0 Registered p Applied for Permit
E Certified p Permitted
n Not Operationa Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: B&P Pig Farm County:W..a)mc............................................... .WaRD........
OwnerName: Michael ................................. Kirby ...... _... ..... ........................................ Phone No:73.4-.4640 ...................................................................
Facility Contact: Mike -Kirby ................. ..................... _............. Title: Owner................................................. Phone No:....................................................
Mailing Address: 1498.AndwARA...... ......................... _................................................ EikeYilleKC.......................................................... 27862A ..............
Onsite Representative: Mike.Kirby................................................_................................ Integrator: Goldsbarn.Hog.F.arms.......................................
Certified Operator:MidweLE ................. _.......... Kirby ............................................ _... Operator Certification Number: 19408.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ©e® ®" Longitude ©• ©' ®"
ype of Operation _Design Current
'Swine `-Capacity"Population
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
p Other
Design . Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
p Layer I Dairy
Non -Layer [3 Non -Dairy
- Total.Design Capacity3,200
Total SSLW96,000
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field 13 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
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
13 Yes ® No

Itacility Number: 96_56
6. Is fa�r,.ility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes ® No
. ,t
7. Did the faCtity fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes ® No
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? p Yes ® No
Structures (L.aaoons and/or Holdin¢ Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes ® No
Freeboard (11): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
............... 83......... ... _...................... _........ _...
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? p Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? p Yes N No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
p Yes
N No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
p Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ...... Cnastal.B�emwda.Grass...... .............. ......... Rye................................. ................................................... ................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
p Yes
N No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
p Yes
® No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
p Yes
®No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
p Yes
® No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
p Yes
® No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
p Yes
®No
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
p Yes
®No
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
® No
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes
® No
Reviewer/Inspector Name dfoLn IVL_Filzgerald
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: (y� 3c cc i Date:

Site Requires Immediate Attention: 1
Facility No.36—
SL'S -/ scll3
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS STTE VISITATION RECORD
Date: $'^2� , 1995
Time:
Farm Name/Owner:
Mailing Address: [4-'(W /-4 -t,C el ,' c C �{'2,7 ? 61
County: w A r
Integrator: (t= Phone:g19-7i$- 3'/3C5
On Site Representative: hone: < cA_ 6(A0
Phys' al /[/ 4TJQH.
Type of ,Operation: Swine c Poultry Catt e \
No. of Animals on Site:
DEM Certification No.: ACE DEM Certific tion No.: ACNEW
Latitude: �L - Longitude: -Q � Elevation: Ft
Circle Yes or No
Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient Ireeboard of 1 Ft + 25 year 24 hour
storm event? (approximately 1 Ft + 7 in) es r No
Actual Freeboard: Q= Ft n Inches
Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes orco!)
Was any erosion observed? Yes or �O
Is adequate land available for spray? es or No
Is the cover crop adequate? Ce�or No g, 3 / P1 �P�CZ�r�el41✓/(le��a�
Crop(s) being utilized: (Q,'R 8LCA0n �,�.;,QoQ, p
Does the facility meet SCS minimum setback criteria?
200 Ft from Dwellings? CID or No . 100 Ft from Wells? C� or No
Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Ft of USGS Blue Line Stream?
Yes oxi95
Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Ft of a USGS Map Blue
Line? Yes or425-)
Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by -man-made ditch, flushing
system, or other similar man-made devices? Yes o o'
If Yes, please explain:
Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure
land applied, spray irrigated on specific acreage with ver crop)? Yes or�t
Znspectc Name Signature
Siam/I
cc: Facility Assessment Unit C,.0
Comments & Sketch on Back of Sheet

DEM
SITE VISITATION RECORD
Page Two
Sketch: