820723_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual
0)

Type of Visit Q Compliance inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit © Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: D3 :O el Departure Time: «a3; O Count}': AMt d Region: FAO
.10 1-1 opor"t
Farm Name: _ G re ew ` lVeQ AJ 6 V &4 Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: _
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other.
Title:
Phone No:
Integrator:
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: =0 =1 Longitude: =0=6 °=6
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Laver
I ❑ Non -La 'ez
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑
Non -Layers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design.. Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Co
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach craters of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes © No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
©No
[INA
LINE
❑ Yes
El No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Y❑ No
❑ Yes
Y❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
11/18104 Continued

CIO
Q W
O r W
ry
i v
Or x.
Z' i 1 n Q ✓. O CY
W Fu`y I ioZ
x Z c± Z
`/�1��
W O 2 O — Z r ` ,
n !�/
��
as Ja J J W
Ya e`
��LLJ
Tu
V N
wyJ
T) N -
ra r�-- N
=z
- X�
w w O g
`
a< a l
LJ Jam~
r
IyJ
EL
w
Ed I I=1 I I=1 11-1 I I -w cn
` !! ! I I-1 I I-1 11-1 I I,--- o z
�W I; -III -I 11-, I I!-! I I; I ►-= h � �: � �
z
!=1 I I-1 11=1 11=III; LL.
In
ry
:D ' , W O
C/O! I=1 I I=!
!__! I �dfd }9tlb HJSIO
!IIE I!_!!I-
_ I
I=1 I I-_!
co CN
I—� L
yl
W
I
r _
~ r I I I Z
LLJ
II� W
V)
I=1 C/O
iILAJ
O
i t/7 I
i to
LLi z
a- i d-
! i CD _
W
_1 o
m
NN P.�)N Q -z
-,I T.
,
J
C,'.
�z
ri
O
l-
}
y
�W I; -III -I 11-, I I!-! I I; I ►-= h � �: � �
z
!=1 I I-1 11=1 11=III; LL.
In
ry
:D ' , W O
C/O! I=1 I I=!
!__! I �dfd }9tlb HJSIO
!IIE I!_!!I-
_ I
I=1 I I-_!
co CN
I—� L
yl
W
I
r _
~ r I I I Z
LLJ
II� W
V)
I=1 C/O
iILAJ
O
i t/7 I
i to
LLi z
a- i d-
! i CD _
W
_1 o
m
NN P.�)N Q -z
-,I T.
,
J
C,'.

Facility Number: $2 — %�3 Date of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a- If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
❑ Yes [?fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Y.
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [$ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) '
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed [-']Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [PNo ❑ 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 [I -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Agnlicadon
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? 1f yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[21 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16_ Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
No
El NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
[I Yes
,&
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments.(refer.to'gtiestioa ft Explain -any YES answers and/or any recommendations,.or aoy.other comments
Use:drawrngs of facility.to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)Y
_ _: f
A6
Reviewer/inspector Namej �/` %�e V 21_ Phone: (`jl o t13 J - 333 a
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: t w-�.� Date: 12 - 117 - Zoo (o
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

AL
Facility Number: $2 — %Zj Date of Inspection
Renuired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes Q�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CA WMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [T -No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP El Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps El Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [9 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
EZ -No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[2RIo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[;jVNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[ kNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
('No
r[FNo
El NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
[__1 Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
2$.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[;'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
DrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
2PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31-
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional CamEnerits and/or Drawin s
g
s
Page 3 of 3 12/28104

Type of Visit 0 Compliance inspection U Operation Review V Structure Evaluation U Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: /1 ~!i`O is Arrival Time: 03',0Departure Time: 103"10 1 County: 54^40QZVAJ
Farm Name: , Grieeni `_We4.v t-aj-M Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: —
Bach -up Operator: _
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
❑ Other
Title:
Phone:
Phone No:
Integrator*
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Region: /':7A-10
Latitude: = o =I
="
Longitude: = ° = i
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Vet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer E I
i
❑ Non -La et E
Dry Poultry
❑ Layers
❑ Non -La ers
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ Turkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharges & Stream Impacts
. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Daia Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer t
❑ Dry Cow 3
i.
❑ Non-Dairyi
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Ca
Number of Structures:
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes. notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does dischargc bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
U3 No
❑ NA
EINE
❑ Yes
C1 No
[INA
❑ NE
❑ NA
EINE
❑ Yes
[P No
❑ Yes
F No
+
C] NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
I No
❑ NA
EINE
12128104 Continued

y
❑ Yes
[�INo
❑ NA
Facility Number: �Z r ']23 Date of Inspection
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
[] Yes
V1 No
Waste Collection & Treatment
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
[ffNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
[]Yes
&No
❑ NA CINE
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
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or
environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
$. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
[37No
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[;XNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below_
❑ Yes
[gNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or I0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate ManurelSludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[�INo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
[] Yes
V1 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ?
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[;� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
�at Y v—_ i
Reviewer/Inspector Name �v e r<S - Y - --- Phone: ql o) Y33 - 333ID
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: / 2 �`j - ZeD 6,
Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued

F
Facility Number: 17- — 723 Date of Inspection
Re aired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA [] NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes [FNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22_
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
[2rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ NA
❑ NE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
P'No
r'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
26_
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
27.
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
7No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Other Issues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWW?
❑ Yes
[;�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
QFNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
�NNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
�3 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
;allo
❑ NA
❑ NE
33.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
)9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
f -4r i 5 G G,
Page 3 of 3 12128104

r
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: 7- //-o Arrival Time: Departure-Firne: County: Region: ZE'fla
Farm Name:—_ Tt,zP_,j Fele Owner Email:
Owner Name: A- F Phone: LIQ -x299- A///
Mailing Address: �0Z9 �S9 _ _ �e�e y'�� N(-
Physical Address:
Facilitv Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Title:
Phone No:
Integrator:! rz moi
Operator Certification Number:
Back-up Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: =(I= I 0 1
1 Longitude: =0=, =
Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle
❑ Laver
❑ Non-l-avet
❑ Wean to Finish
[Wean to Feeder I iL&oo
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
❑ Lavers
❑ Non -La erg
❑ Pullets
❑ Turkeys
❑ urkey Poults
❑ Other
Discharees & 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?
DaiTy Cow
❑
Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ Dry Cow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beet' Stocket
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood_Cowl
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Design Current
Capacity Population
❑
Number of Structures:
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes. notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA E<
El Yes
El No
❑NA
[I NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NA
❑ NSE
❑ Yes
❑ No
El Yes
El No
❑ NA
2 NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
O<E
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: 8.. — 7 j Date of Inspection i-I/-o1�`
Waste Collection & Treatment
4_ Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [310E
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 ❑ No ❑ NA 21gE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA q1GE
through a waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA B''iE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑<
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [11�
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Q<E
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 9 E
❑ 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 Drifi ❑ Application Outside of Area
12_ Crop type(s)
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑'rqE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
R&E
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination':
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
PfgE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
9f1iE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
Reviewer/Inspector Name fit," r e., Phone: M'- Lfr4-1 ina %
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 7-n-U'r
12/28/04 Continued

Facility Number: g,� - ; Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [I.0-
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 211E
the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [l" i
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
22.
Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
fhE
23.
If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[:1 Yes
C1 No
El NA
�❑�'
!� qE
24.
Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
�iE
25.
Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
UmE
26.
Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[��
27_
Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus toss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[AGE -
Other lssues
28.
Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
[21'9E
29.
Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
[] Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
2'9-E
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal`?
30.
At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
D<E
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately
31.
Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
9 -KE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32_
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
33_
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
[I Yes
[:1 No
El NA
,D-1VV
L1 NE
Addidohal Goi�tments`andlor Drawing$:
/ ar^ /3 X70 10,uer
1.2/28104

0 Division of Soil and Water Conserva�on Operation Review
r+ E E3 Division of Soil and Water Conservaon "Compliance Inspecfi�oin��� -
. ��� :� VDti�ision of Water Quality Comphanee IUspechon L�*, _
Other Agency.. Operat.onaRiv�ew u r Y z ,_ _.
JeRoutine Q Complaint__Q Follow -u i of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number Z 2 3 Date of Inspection V2 – -4
Time of Inspection 4'40 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified Q Registered [3 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ...- reerL...- .eQ...!!--................................................................ County. ......... �.1.. 'lr'!^ AM— -------
2V9
Owner Name: ..... K".rD lJ..l.y '' Phone No: _...........................................
1 ........ ...... .....�+e..S.......... 7, 1
Facility Contact : ................................................... ................ Title: Phone No:
Mailing Address: ..... .Q.�...g�,1�....'rog
�................................................................ ../�.bSG....`(� J , i�%...................
Onsite Representative: ,•�•• , AC?}�- Integrator: .............
..................... .......... r.............................................
CertifiedOperator:...................................................................................................•--•--....... Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm:
r• --- ........................................... ...........................................................................................--- ...--- I,--,' --- II ---- ............................-....».......................... _.........................................
` t
Latitude 0. 6 Longitude • 1 1&
Swine
4 4 _ ` Design Current -- :_ Design Current
Capacity Pooulabon 00017Y2. Capacity Pooulation
Wean to Feeder pd
'
❑ Layer
❑ Fee der to Finish
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Farrow to Wean
ElFarrow to Feeder
❑Other
❑ Farrow to Finish
--1,;7 : -:,°" =- Total Desi
.•+,.) ;PACE �'
' 3
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars�'�
Design Current .;
Cattle Capacity Population.
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy ;
;n Capacity 2 L ad
otal SSL W
Dischames & Stream Impacts
L 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'?
h. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min"
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches):........................................................................................................................................
5- Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc,)
3123199
❑ Yes V� No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes IR No
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes qNo
❑ Yes RNO
❑ Yes 5'No
Structure 6
❑ Yes Flo
Continued on back

m3 Division of Soil and Wates Conservation _Operation Review - _
13 Division of Soil and Water Cotttservation Compliance Dtspect�oa "
Dr�sion of Water Quality Conatpl�ance lnspechon , ,
{_ #_ .
Other Agency Operation Review.�s - ._. _s , _`
1Q Routine Q Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Facility Number 3 Date of Inspection FIT -2-1 79
Time of Inspection J2.'UU 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted 0 Certified (3 Conditionally Certified © Registered 10 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: ----r,7!`� n �J,,_Or,.................................................................... County: ......... _1 ...�—_.,_._......... ...................
...-
Owner Name: ....-.
.-...�•:•�--?-r•I.....-.y►f-t. �t��?..✓...fn..S.......--..- Phone No: ... 1 .
/ ..... .
Facility Contact: ....................................... -...................................... Title: ----..... Phone No:
'Mailing Address: �,....c..8-at/...... 7�1 .............................................. . ..'..//-7 .. ...................7.
Onsite Representative:.f.......T ...................Integr�tor:............................ ......... ............................
Certified Operator:................................................................................................................ Operator Certification Number: ........ -`................................
Location of Farm:
r•-.-•---•••-----------•-- --- ......................•------------•----.-..--..-.--.-................................................................................--...-..........-...--•--.....-....-.-..--...-...............-.-...............................••••••r
Latitude E=• ° Longitude * 4 '4
`Design Current Destrgn ,, Current Design Current
Swine - Capacity Population Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Po ulation
[g Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy
J❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other —
Total Design Capacity G D U
:y
Total SSLW
�NuEmber ofLagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area 10Spray Field Area
Holding•Ponds / Solid Traps, No Liquid Waste Management System -•
Discharge- & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 0 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field [I Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance roan -made? ❑ Yes E]`No
h- if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes © No
c. if discharee is observed, what is the estimated flow in aal/ruin?
d. Docs discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Yes 0 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 l"No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4- Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes RNo
Structure I Struciure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
I-reeboard (inches); .......................... ................................... ................................... ........-.............-............
.................'---......
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes R_No
- seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back
µ. w

Facility Number: Dale of inspection
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenarice/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over anplicatOn? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
12. Crop type
�1-A
13- Do the receiving crops diffe/with those designateWin the Certified Animal Wase Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16- Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
0: No-yigiatidhs or deficiencies ikre noted- diWing this:visit: - Yoir< will-i-eegiye Citi fui-thee
corre&ideitce: abrrU this visit.: .. .
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes VNo
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes �jLNo
❑ Yes JKNo
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [5; No
❑ Yes (4 No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes I& No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
��i�s -Earn,. r.��,''ltes a � wQs� S s�� GcS•�c 41N� s�-� a.s . _..y
/ �{,�,�/� �T ,ws ��7`•.z._.. �Q..�o//�%rT+a�G.�t� h$ea�s
iht101y .� /KSPeG�70w a"1 its '�cr !�`,
N r u j 5 idh ztj 5 cL
^1�t
+:Lr� n4- +lip t7c- 4-4p. l� Pia � -� e c�e r a perm �•..
AouSeS AJ -�o`r;.i54io-4 °9s.
Reviewer/Inspector Name r.,i
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: / G- Z/_
3/23/99

Facility Number: 7z3 I Date o1' Inspection /Z- `9�1
6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
Closure plan? ❑ Yes KNo
(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 If No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenahce/improvement? [:]Yes �J,No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes PNo
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? 0 Yes RNo
11. Is there evidence of over a�p[plicati n? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN / ❑ Yes ❑ No
12- Crop tyles
13. Do the receiving crops differ with th .e designatedrin the Certified Animal Wase Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes RNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes © No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes [X No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes j& No
Reguired Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
yiolaficjris o:r defeiencies wzere poles during this' sit.- Yoil wiil•teceiye lid rui•thi r ;
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
❑ No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
❑ No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
❑ No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Ins ector Signature: Date:_
P g /�
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
❑ No
23.
Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative?
❑ Yes
❑ No
24.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
yiolaficjris o:r defeiencies wzere poles during this' sit.- Yoil wiil•teceiye lid rui•thi r ;
•.•corres• ondence.abnutt�i5.visit.:-.-.•.•.•.-.�.-.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.�.-.-.•..•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.
Comments {refer to gneshoa #) =Explain any YES swans s andlorany recommendations ro�any other comments_—
Use drawings of faeihty to better explain sttttahonsy (ttse.addtttonal pages as necessary)_ =� , �-- � � � � °� � a_
��.�
CL Jr-'_ LJ C_ 5 �* 5-t S lee 641 .4t W` a/
,44 ,1
,F 00/Ucod ;'F1 SpLOC /i•dx c`T� 17i;� �c�I �,
r
u 5; 61, a l P[ e` 11, i 5 e a K `f'O t e e J fi r Op, r�� � �• .
4G+. a -G. ,',Klr1�e'f�n_,.. a//�iau5e5 {.c,�i+ti5��rr'°95.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Ins ector Signature: Date:_
P g /�
f I w 3123199