370059_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
0�
Department of Environmental Qual

z
I Lu I - � \^-
.�
- �~
»®
\

e
M Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
370059 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS370059
Denied Access
Inpsection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Dale:
Reason for visit:
Routine
County: Gates Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
02/19/2018 Entry Time: 10:20 am
Exit Time: 11:45 am Incident #
Farm Name:
Sarem Farms. Inc.
Owner Email:
[e-mail]
Owner:
Sarem Farms Inc
Phone:
252-357-0503
Mailing Address: PO Box 187 Gates NC 27937
Physical Address: 246 Sarem Rd Gates NC 27937
Facility Status: Compliant Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude.. 36' 28' 30" Longitude: 76` 47' 08"
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col. Stor, & Treat
Other issues
Waste Application
Certified Operator: Bundy H Lane Operator Certification Number: 18215
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Bundy Lane Phone:
On -site representative Bundy Lane Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis: Soil tested: 2016/2017
2-24-17 = ,70
6-12-17 = .91
IRR records are complete & balanced out.
Reviewed: stocking; sludge survey 812017 at T 2.9, LTZ 8.9; crop yield -hay 1130 bales; COC; rainfall freeboard
page: 1

* Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 02/19/18 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:- Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 4,800 4,250
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 2,078.400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
PRIMARY
08/28/96
33.00
34_00
Lagoon
SECONDARY
04/13/97
33.00
:EE00
e
page: 2

f Permit: AWS370059
Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 02/19/18 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?
❑
❑
❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
M ❑
❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
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?
❑
M ❑
❑
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 (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?
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

41
t Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number:
370059
Inspection Date: 02/19/18 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit:
Routine
Waste Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Soybeans
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
❑ E ❑
❑
Management Plan(CAWMP)?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
Cl M ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑ 0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
1101111
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

le Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 02/19/18 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
E1313
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑
❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
0 ❑
❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑
❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑
❑
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,
❑
N ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
N ❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface the drains exist at the facility?
❑
❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑
E ❑
❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
0 ❑
❑
page: 5

Division of Water Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number:
370059 Facility Status:
Active Permit: AWS370059
Denied Access
Inspection Type:
Compliance Inspection
Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit:
Routine
County: Gates Region:
Washington
Date of Visit:
11115/2016 Entry Time: 09:30 am
Exit Time: 11:00 am incident 9
Farm Name:
Sarem Farms, Inc.
Owner Email:
[e-mail]
Owner:
Sarem Farms Inc
Phone:
252-357-0503
Mailing Address: PO Box 187 Gates NC 27937
Physical Address: 246 Sarem Rd Gates NC 27937
Facility Status: 0Compliant Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm:
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd.
Question Areas:
Dischrge 8 Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Latitude: 36' 28' 30" Longitude: 76° 47' 08"
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat
Other issues
Waste Application
Certified Operator: Bundy H Lane Operator Certification Number: 18215
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Bundy Lane Phone:
On -site representative Bundy Lane Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspectorfs):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis:
6-1-16 = .35
IRR records are complete & balanced out. soil tested: 2015
Reviewed: stocking/mortality; soils; sludge survey - 1 %; crop yield; rainfall/freeboard.
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

• Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 11/15/16 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 41800 4,265
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 2,078,400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
PRIMARY
08/28/96
33,00
33.00
[Lagoon
SECONDARY 04/13/97
33.00
33.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 11/15/16 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?
❑
■ ❑
❑
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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
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 Ne
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard?
❑
S. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (I.e./ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
M ❑
❑
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
❑ 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: 3

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 11/15/16 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Hay)
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?
❑
E ❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre
❑
0 ❑
❑
determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
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?
❑
N ❑
❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 11/15/16 Inssection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No Na Ne
Crop yields?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
❑
Sludge Survey
❑
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑
❑ ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
❑ ❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
M ❑ ❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
M ❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes
No Na No
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
M ❑
❑
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?
❑
No
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
SO
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon / Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
CAWM P?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
page: 5

�I
Division of Water Resources
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
El Other Agency
Facility Number: 370059 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS370059
Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive Or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Gates Region:
Date of Visit: 0811012015 Entry Time: 11'.00 am Exit Time: 11:50 am Incident #
Farm Name: Sarem Farms, Inc. Owner Email:
Owner: Sarem Farms Inc Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 187 Gates NC 27937
Physical Address: 246 Sarem Rd Gates NC 27937
Facility Status: ❑ Murtshy-Brown LLC
❑ Denied Access
Washington
[e-mail]
252-357-0503
Compliant Not Compliant Integrator:
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36° 28' 30" Longitude: 76' 47' 08"
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts
Records and Documents
Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Other Issues
Certified Operator; Bundy H Lane Operator Certification Number: 18215
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Bundy Lane Phone:
On -site representative Bundy Lane Phone:
Primary Inspector:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Marlene Salyer
Inspection Summary:
Waste Analysis: soil tested: 2014
7-16-15 = 7.7
9-19-14 = .52
8-16-13 = .89
IRR records are complete & balanced out.
Reviewed: NEW COC; crop yields; rainfall/freeboard; sludge survey 812014 LTZ=9.2 T=3.8, survey is due in 2015.
Crops look good.
Phone:
Date:
page: 1

f
Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 08/10/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current promotions
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 4,800 4,300
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 2.078,400
Waste Structures
Disignated Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
Lagoon
PRIMARY
08/28/96
33,00
30.00
Lagoon
SECONDARY
04/13/97
33,00
30.00
page: 2

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 08/10/15 Inpsection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Impacts
Yos No No No
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑
❑
[]
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)
❑
■ ❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
Slate other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection, Storage $ Treatment
Yes
No No No
4. Is storage capacity less than adequate?
❑
M ❑
❑
If yes, is waste level into structural Freeboard?
❑
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (LeJ large
❑
M ❑
❑
trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑
0 ❑
❑
waste management or closure plan?
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
S. 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 No No
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ M ❑ ❑
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
D
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
❑
Failure to incorporate manurelsludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crop window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
page: 3

r
Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 08/10/15 Inppection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Wagg Application
Yes No Na Ne
Crop Type 1
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Corn (Grain)
Crop Type 4
Soybeans
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?
❑0 ❑
❑
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?
❑ E ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ E ❑
❑
Records and Documents
Yes No Na No
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Lease Agreements?
❑
Other?
❑
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ 0 ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
Waste Analysis?
❑
Soil analysis?
❑
Waste Transfers?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Rainfall?
❑
Stocking?
❑
page: 4

Permit: AWS370059
Owner - Facility : Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 08/10/15 Inppection 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 ❑ ❑
23, If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment
❑
0 ❑ ❑
(NPDES only)?
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑
0 ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the
❑
❑ ❑
appropriate box(es) below:
Failure to complete annual sludge survey
❑
Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
❑
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑
❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
Other Issues
Yes No Na Me
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document
❑
0 ❑
❑
and report mortality rates that exceed normal rates?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes,
❑
0 ❑
❑
contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
❑
❑
(i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Application Field
❑
Lagoon 1 Storage Pond
❑
Other
❑
If Other, please specify
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or
❑
❑
❑
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: 5

4
0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 270059 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS370059 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comolignce Inspection - _- Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Gates_ Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 10/09/2013 Entry Time: 09:50 AM Exit Time: 10:45 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Sargm Farms. Inc. _ Owner Email: bundylaneOhuahes.n
Owner: Sare_m Farms Inc Phone:
Mailing Address: PO Box 187 Gates NC 27937
Physical Address: 24Q Sarem Rd _ _ Gates NC 27937
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36*2$'20" Longitude: 76°47'08"
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd.
Question Areas:
Dischrge & Stream Impacts Waste Col, Stor, & Treat Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Bundy H Lane Operator Certification Number: 18215
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Bundy Lane Phone:
On -site representative Bundy Lane Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis:
6-14-12 = 1.3 soil tested: 1112011
7-13-11 = .96
IRR records are complete & balanced out. Rainfall, freeboard, crop yield, stocking & are recorded.
Sludge survey done in 2012 Caliberation due in 2013
3.5 in. rain on Oct. 8, 2012
270 bulcorn/ac in 2012 Looks Great!
Page: 1

t
Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Date: 1010912013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 41800 4,200
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 2,078,400
Waste Structures
Designed Observed
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Freeboard Freeboard
agoon
PRIMARY
08/28/96
33.00
25.00
agoon
SECONDARY
04/13/97
33.00
25.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 10/0912013 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? ❑ o ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure ❑
Application Field ❑
Other ❑
a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ M ❑ ❑
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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: 3

0
Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Date: 10/09/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance inspection
Facility Number: 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total Phosphorus?
Q
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
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Soybeans
Crop Type 4
Corn (Grain)
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? ❑ ■ ❑ Q
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ IN ❑ ❑
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.
Wt1P?
❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Date: 10/09/2013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Records and Documents
Facility Number: 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
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
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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: 5

Permit. AWS370059 Owner - Facility: 5arem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 10/0912013 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ m ❑ ❑
Other issues Yes No NA NE
26. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report Cl ■ ❑ ❑
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-oompliance 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?
IS
Page: 6

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 370059 Facility Status: AQjive Permit: AWS370059 _ ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Ins i n Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: $QWline County: Gates Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 0711412011 Entry Time:09:00 A 1(d _ Exit Time: 09:38 AM Incident #:
Farm Name: Sarem Farms. lnr,. _ Owner Email:
Owner: SaMm Farms Inc Phone: 252-35,7 05Q3
Mailing Address: PO Box 187
Physical Address: 246 Sarem Rd Qaates NC-27937
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: M�pr by -Brown LLC '
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36"28'30" Longitude: 76'47'08"
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd,
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Jj Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Bundy H Lane Operator Certification Number: 18215
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Bundy Lane Phone:
On -site representative Bundy Lane Phone:
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested: 2011
7-8-11 = .96
1-12-11 = .85
IRR records are complete and balanced out.
Crop yield, freeboard levels and rainfall are recorded.
Looks good. Need to do sludge survey and caliberation.
Page: 1

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 07/14/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Swine - Farrow to Wean 4,800 4,300
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 2,078,400
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
PRIMARY
06/28/96
33.00
agoon
SECONDARY
04/13/97
33.00
90.00
Page: 2

IF
Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number, 370059
Inspection Date: 07/1412011 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, Sto -age & 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 (I.e./ large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not property 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 ❑ M ❑ ❑
improvement?
11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? ❑ M ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Data: 07/14/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 370059
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
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Hay)
Crop Type 3
Cam (Grain)
Crop Type 4
Soybeans
Crop Type 5
Crop Type 6
Soil Type 1
Soil Type 2
Soil Type 3
Sail 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? 110 ❑ ❑
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Cl ■ ❑ ❑
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,
WU P?
❑
Pager 4

Permit: AWS370059 Owner- Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility number: 370059
Inspection Date: 07/14/2011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents Yes No NA NE
Checklists? ❑
Design? ❑
Maps? ❑
Lease Agreements? Q
Other? Q
If Other, please specify
21. Does record keeping need improvement? Q ■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below,
Waste Application?
Q
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?
Q
■ ❑ ❑
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?
Q
■ ❑ ❑
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate
❑
■ ❑ Q
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: 5

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 07/1412011 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection 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,
❑ IN
❑
❑
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 reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

r
0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 370059 __ Facility Status: Active_ Permit: AWS370059 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Galg Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 08/17/201Q Entry Time:09:20 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Sarem Farms. lVL. Owner Email: n I
Owner: Sarem Farms inc Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box i87 Gates NC 27937
Physical Address: 246 Sarem Rd Gatea_NQ 27937
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy -Brown LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 36°28'30 Longitude: 70°47'08"
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Bundy H Lane Operator Certification Number: 18215
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representatives): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Bundy Lane Phone:
On -site representative Bundy Lane Phone:
Primary inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Page: 1

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number : 370059
Inspection Date: 0811712010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis"
12-11-10 = 1.1
6-22-10 = .72 .61 .64
soil tested 2010 SS 2009 so due in 2010
Freeboard Mange:
5-10-10 = 38"--6-28-10 = 90"
records are complete and balanced out Looks Good,
Page: 2

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Date: 0811712010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Farrow to Wean 4,800 4,700
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 2,078,400
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
PRIMARY
08/28/95
33.00
74.00
agoon
SECONDARY
04/13/97
33.00
Page: 3

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number : 370059
Inspection Date: 0811712010 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?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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.eJ large trees, severe
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
erosion, seepage, etc.)?
6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ 0 ❑
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: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Date: 08/1712010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number. 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
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
(Pasture)
Crop Type 2
Fescue (Pasture)
Crop Type 3
Soybeans
Crop Type 4
Com (Grain)
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?
❑ m ❑ ❑
Records and Documents
Yes No NA N£
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?
❑ E ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WU P?
❑
Page: 5

Permit: AW5370059 Owner - Facility: 5arem Farms Inc
Facility Number. 370059
Inspection Date: 08/17/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Records and Documents
Yes
No NA NE
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
Cl
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
■ ❑ ❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Waste Application?
❑
120 Minute inspections?
❑
Weather code?
❑
Weekly Freeboard?
❑
'transfers?
❑
Rainfall?
Q
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?
❑
■ 0 ❑
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain a rainbreaker on irrigation equipment (NPDES
only)? ❑
■ Q ❑
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?
❑
■ Q ❑
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge?
Q
■ ❑ ❑
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
Q
■ ❑ ❑
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 0 ■ ❑ ❑
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 6

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 08/17/2010 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Issues Yes No NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewtinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 7

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 370059 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWS370059 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routing County: Gat 5 Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 06/04/2009 Entry Time:09:20 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Sarem Farms, Inc.
Owner: Sarem Farms Inc
Incident #:
Owner Email: bundvIanek�hughes.n
Mailing Address: PO Box 187 _ Gates NC 27937
Phone: [phone]
Physical Address: 246 Sarem Rd Gate§,NC 27937
Facility Status: E Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Murphy, -Brown. LLC
Location of Farm: Latitude: 3§ 28'30„ _ _ Longitude: 76°4_7'08"
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents
Certified Operator: Bundy H Lane Operator Certification Number: 18215
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name
24 hour contact name Bundy Lane
On -site representative Bundy Lane
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
waste analysis: soil tested fall 2008
6-18-08 = 1.6 1.9
a sample pulled on 5-18-09
Irrigation records are not balanced waiting on the sample results.
Caliberation 7-8-08 & sludge survey in 2008
Looks Great.
Title
Phone:
Phone:
Phone:
Date:
Phone
Page: 1

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Date: 06/04/2009 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
FW Swine - Farrow to Wean 4,800 4,750
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 2.078,400
Type Identifier
Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
PRIMARY
08/28/96
33.00
36.00
agoon
SECONDARY
04/13/97
33.00
36.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 06/04/2009 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 0f 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: 3

6
permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 06/04/2009 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? Q
Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑
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
Pian(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
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?
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Pasture)
Soybeans
❑■❑❑
❑■❑❑
u
Page: 4

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number. 370059
Inspection Date: 0610412009 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?
❑
0011
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?
❑
■
❑ ❑
Page: 5

0 Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 370059
_ Facility Status: Active _ Permit: AWS370
g ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine
County: Gates
Region: lye! §hinaton
Date of Visit: 04Q912Q¢$�
Entry Time:09:00 AM Exit Time:
Incident M.
Farm Name: 51reai Fijrms. Inc.
Owner Email: bun vlaneQhuohes.n
Owner: Sarern Farms Inc
Phone: [phone]
Mailing Address: PO Box 187
Qztes tIC 27937
Physical Address: 246 Sarem Rd
Gates NC 27937
_ _ _
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant
❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Carroll's Foods
of Virginia LLC
Location of Farm:
Latitude: 36°28'30"
Longitude: 7 °
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd.
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Bundy H Lane Operator Certification Number: 18215
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
24 hour contact name Bundy Lane Phone:
On -site representative Bundy Lane Phone:
Primary Inspector. Marlene Salyer
Inspector Signature: _
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
No current waste analysis
Just have 2 recent irrigation events, waiting on analysis to balance out the IRR forms
Soil test for the 07-08 year is current with lime applied recently.
Reel caliberated on 6-18-07
Center pivot calib. on 5-22-07
Phone:
Date:
A new composter unit is being installed and should be in use by May 10, 2008. It is an Ecodrum, plastic insulated that holds the
internal temp to 150 degrees and finishes composting in 12 days. A very nice system.
Page: 1

Permit: AWS370059 Owner • Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Date: 04/29/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Farrow to Wean 4,800 4,800
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 2,078,400
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
agoon
PRIMARY
0812a196
33.00
45.00
agoon
SECONDARY
04/13/97
33.00
45.00
Page: 2

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: 5arem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection pate: 04/29/2008 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
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
❑
■
❑ ❑
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?
❑
■
❑ ❑
B. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits,
❑
000
dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
0011
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: 3

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 04/29/2008 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? ❑
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
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?
Com (Grain)
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 4

Permit: AWS370059 Owner - Facility: 5arem Farms Inc Facility Number : 370059
Inspection Date: 04/29/2008 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)?
❑ ❑ ■
❑
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: 5

Permit: AWS370059 Owner- Facility: Sarem Fars Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 04/29/2008 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
n#lance Yon Nn NA NE
31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ■ Q ❑
32. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Page: 6

® Division of Water Quality
Facility Number ej' 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation M_ 2 — 0 Other Agency
Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit Routine 0 Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: �// Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: n�fiL�ra/ Jlar ! Owner Email:
Region: R/
Owner Name: vrdll Phone: A; j2—'?S-2 "O
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: n
Facility Contact: /// Title:
Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Integrator:
Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: ZZ42-15
or
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Back-up Certification Number:
Latitude: = o = . Longitude: = ° = I 0 u
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Wean to Finish
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
t/
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
Gilts
d
CR Boars
Q
Other
❑ Other
Dry Poultry
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Dairy Cow
❑ Dairy Calf
❑ Dairy Heifer
❑ DryCow
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Beef Stocker
❑ Beef Feeder
❑ Beef Brood Cod
T
Number of Structures:
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?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State
other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes NI'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑Yes
❑No
❑NA
ONE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Rf No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 12128104 Continued

0.
Facility Number:L3 7 —(j 97 Date of Inspection — --0
Waste Collection & Treatment
No
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes R
❑ 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 li/J No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
No
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed
❑ Yes Gj
❑ 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 U(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
(Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 5 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 97No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area
12. Crop type(s) f-T
13. Soil type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes o ElNA ElNE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ElYes IjQ ,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes m o El NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? El Yes Yo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
d4
7�'
e
Reviewerlllnspector Name r Phone:
Reviewer)'lnspector Signature: Date:
Page 2 of 3 12/2VO4 Continued

Y
Facility Number: C39 Date of Inspection
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design Maps ❑ Other
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 10 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code
❑ Yes
N'o
El NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
,5
�!d'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes E4 ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ N E; NA ❑ NE
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes �El NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 'N o ❑ NA ElNE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ElYes El2 No NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes [ ❑ NA ❑ NE
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ElYes Lid No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal?
30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ Yes 14 ❑ 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 �/Nj ❑ NA El NE
General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Additional Comments and/or Drawings:
Page 3 of 3 12128104

N Division of Water Quality
❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation
❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 370059 Facility Status: Active Permit: NCA237059 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Comoliance In5pgc1ion Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine County: Gates Region: Washinoton
Date of Visit: Q810112006 Entry Time:09:30 AM Exit Time: Incident #:
Farm Name: Sarem Farms, Inc. Owner Email:
Owner: Sarem Farms Inc
Mailing Address: PO Box 187 Gates NC 27937
Physical Address:
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd,
Phone: [phone]
Integrator:
Latitude: 36°28'30" Longitude: 76°47'08"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application
Records and Documents Other Issues
Certified Operator: Bundy H Lane
Secondary OIC(s):
Operator Certification Number: 18215
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Bundy Lane Phone: [phone]
24 hour contact name Bundy Lane Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature: Date:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analyses:
5-16-06 = 1.1 1.2
7-27-06 sample pulled
Soil test 3-7-06
Page: 1

Permit: NCA237059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 08/01/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
Q Swine - Farrow to Wean 4,800 4,600
Q Swine -Gilts
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSLW: 2,078,400
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard observed Freeboard
agoon
PRIMARY
08/28/96
33.00
33.00
agoon
SECONDARY
04/13/97
33.00
72.00
Page: 2

Permit: NCA237059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 08/01/2006 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?
❑ 000
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.eJ large trees, severe
❑ 01111
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,
❑ 0130
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?
❑ ■
❑ ❑
1f yes, check the appropriate box below
-Excessive Ponding? ❑
Hydraulic Overload? ❑
Frozen Ground? ❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)? ❑
Page: 3

Permit: NCA237059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Bate: 08101MO6 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Application
Yes
No NA NE
PAN?
❑
Is PAN > 10%/10 lbs.?
❑
Total P2051?
❑
Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare soil?
❑
Outside of acceptable crap window?
❑
Evidence of wind drift?
❑
Application outside of application area?
❑
Crop Type 1
Com,
Wheat, Soybeans
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?
❑
■ ❑ Cl
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: 4

Permit: NCA237059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 08/01/2006 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 time facility pose an air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air 1101111
Quality representative immediately.
Page: 5

Permit: NCA237059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Date: 08/0112006 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 reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
Facility Number : 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
Yes No NA NE
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
Page: 6

Lq
Division of Water Quality
[] Division of Soil and Water Conservation
- ❑ Other Agency
Facility Number: 370059 Facility Status: Active Permit: NCA237059 ❑ Denied Access
Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection y Inactive or Closed Date:
Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Gates Region: Washington
Date of Visit: 06/28/200 Entry Time: 08:00 AM Exit Time:
Farm Name: Sarem Farmo. lnc.
Owner: Sarem Farms Inc
Incident #:
Owner Email:
Mailing Address: PO Box 187 _ Qates NC 27937
Physical Address:
Facility Status: 0 Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Location of Farm:
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd.
Phone: [phone]
Integrator: Carroll's Foods of Virginia LLC
Latitude: 36°28'30" Longitude: 76°47'08"
Question Areas:
Discharges & Stream Impacts Q Waste Collection & Treatment Q Waste Application
0 Records and Documents Q Other Issues
Certified Operator: Bundy H Lane Operator Certification Number: 18215
Secondary OIC(s):
On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone
On -site representative Bundy Lane Phone: [phone]
24 dour contact name Bundy Lane Phone: [phone]
Primary Inspector: Marlene Salyer Phone:
Inspector Signature:
Secondary Inspector(s):
Inspection Summary:
Waste analysis: 5-25-04 = 1.7, 9-15-04= 0.67; 6-28-05 = pulled, results not back
Soil sample 2004-05 lime was needed and being applied as applicable
The freeboard levels and rain events are recorded weekly.
Date:
Phone:
Phone:
Page: 1

Permit: NCA237059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Facility Number: 370059
Reason for Visit: Routine
Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population
Swine
NSwine - Farrow to Wean 4,800 4,55Q
Total Design Capacity: 4,800
Total SSI-W: 2,078,400
Waste Structures
Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard
Lagoon PRIMARY 42.00
Lagoon SECONDARY
Page: 2

I
Permit: NCA237059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Discharges & Stream Imparts Yes No NA NF
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
Discharge originated at:
Structure
❑
Application Field
❑
Other
❑
a. Was conveyance man-made?
❑
01111
b. Did discharge reach Waters of the State? (if yes, notify DWQ)
❑
0 ❑
❑
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?
❑
Yes
M ❑
No tjA
❑
NE
Waste Collection. Storage & Treatmgnt
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.eJ 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?
❑
0 ❑
❑
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks
❑
0 ❑
❑
and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or
❑
❑
❑
improvement?
Yes
No NA
NF
Wastes Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement?
❑
M ❑
❑
11. Is there evidence of incorrect application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
Excessive Ponding?
❑
Hydraulic Overload?
❑
Frozen Ground?
❑
Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, etc)?
❑ 1
PAN?
❑
Is PAN a 10M0 lbs.?
❑
Total P2O5?
❑
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 (Grain)
Crop Type 2
Soybeans
Crop Type 3
Coastal Bermuda Grass
(Hay)
Crop Type 4
Fescue (Hay, Pasture)
Crop Type 5
Page: 3

0
Permit: NCA237059 Owner - Facility: Sarem Farms Inc
Facility Number; 370059
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection
Reason for Visit: Routine
Waste Apalication
Crop Type 6
Yes
Na NA
NE
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)? 00
❑
❑
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
110
❑
❑
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑
0 ❑
❑
17. Does the facility tack adequate acreage for land application?
❑
0 ❑
❑
18. Is there a lack of property operating waste application equipment?
❑
0 ❑
❑
Rerords and 11nnumPnis
19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available?
00
❑
❑
20_ Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available?
❑
E ❑
❑
If yes, check the appropriate box below.
WUP?
❑
Checklists?
❑
Design?
❑
Maps?
❑
Other?
❑
21. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑
moo
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)?
❑
❑ 0
❑
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 fall to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification?
❑
❑
❑
Page: 4

Permit: NCA237059 Owner - Facility: 5arem Farms Inc Facility Number: 370059
Inspection Date: 06/28/2005 inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine
Other Isgups
28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP?
Yes
❑
No NA
0 ❑
NF
❑
29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality
❑
0 ❑
❑
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
❑
0 ❑
❑
representative immediately.
31, Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit?
❑
N ❑
❑
32. Did Reviewerllnspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection with on -site representative?
00
❑
❑
33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑
M ❑
❑
Page: 5

0 Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency 11
Type of Visit O'Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation I
Reason for Visit AgRoutine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other ❑ Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Facility Number S
Permitted p�j Certified [3 Conditionally Certified [3 Registered
Farm Name: II -�r ���+►�+
Owner Name: ���> u+^ S "4 .
Mailing Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: &_"__ Lvl�
Certified Operator:
Location of Farm:
Time: 1_Cl
10 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
Date Last Operated or A ove Threshold:
Countv:
Phone No:
Phone No:
Integrator: M4 Y..
Operator Certification Number:
,swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 0 & µ Longitude ' 6 Du
Design Current
swine Uapacity ro uiaaon
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
IM Farrow to Wean SOL7 #40;�dl
Ej Farrow to Feeder
n Farrow to Finish
Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Ca aci Population
❑ Layer I I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I In Non -Dairy I I —J
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons _ x, L Subsurface Drains Present
g p ❑ No Liquid Waste Managen
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps
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?
Area Spray Field Area � I
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
identifier:
Freeboard (inches):
05103101
1
77
❑ Yes] No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes .,.y�.,_No
❑ Yes I�No
❑ Yes A No
Structure 6
Continued
2' �

Facility Number: 37 --3-1 Date of Inspection b
r
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 maintenancermprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload . ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc
12. Crop type h25ie-u2 Z.,-- L-W_U`� L.
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal W
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?
Odor Issues
17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours?
19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt,
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional
Air Quality representative immediately.
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes 1] No
❑ Yes 4 No
❑ Yes A No
❑ Yes jr No
❑ Yes ] No
❑ Yes No
S pis
0 Yes 9 No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [1No
❑ Yes _ j No
❑ Yes allo
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes ,� No
rs and/or anyH recommendaborss or any otleer comments.
"' fi4 nal es as neressa �._. ,M.w.
is t7) ❑ Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
/ 3 1 1 �
j,7 IIf -.4' Vrp .
J
leA
V�J�
4010q
Reviewerflmpector NamATTe
can G
;,� _ � s� ar, � -�:..:� w .,�.�.. , x v
ReviewerAnspector Signature:
Date: f '
12112103 Continued

Facility Number: — Date of Inspection b (a
Re aired Records & Document.~
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 tJ No
23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below- ,� Yes ❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard 4Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ONo
25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes N 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 ONo
29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes X No
NPDES Permitted Facilities
30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) JQ Yes ❑ No
31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes A No
32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes J�No
33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? ❑ Yes ,V No
34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ANo
35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes XNc
❑ Stoc cf ing Form ❑ Crop iY eld Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain
❑ 120 MirtCtte. Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form
© No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
dddttonal Camment,:andlor'Drawings
3127 s � �� ice ) , ��, �� �.-VS
A
C'AA �
ke-e �'j_$ 4
12112103

r , -• Technical Assistance Site Visit Report
• Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Natural Resources Conservation Service
O Soil and Water Conservation District
O Other...
Facility Number 37 - 59 Date: 1121104 Time: 1 800 Time On Farm: 50 WARO
Farm Name Sarem Farms, Inc. County Gates
Mailing Address PO Box 187
Gates NC
Phone: [phone]
Onsite -
Representative Bundy Lane _ _._ _ _ Integrator Brown's of Carolina
Tvt)e Of Visit Pwryose Of Visit
Operation Review
Compliance Inspection (pilot only)
Technical Assistance
Confirmation for Removal
❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated:
❑ Operating below threshold
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse
Routine
Response to DWQ/DENR referral
Response to DSWC/SWCD referral
Response to complaint/local referral
Requested by producer/integrator
Follow-up
Emergency
Other...
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Ca acity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
4800
4800
❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
27937
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
1. Is waste discharging from any part of the operation and reaching surface waters or wetlands? ❑ yes ® no
2. Is there evidence of a past waste discharge from any part of the operation that waste reached ❑ yes ® no
surface waters or wetlands?
3. Does any problem pose an immediate threat to the.integrity of the waste structure (large trees, ❑ yes ® no
seepage, severe erosion, etc.)?
4. Is there evidence of nitrogen over application, hydraulic overloading or excessive ponding ❑ yes ® no
requiring DWQ notification?
5. Is there evidence of improper dead animal disposal that poses a threat to the environment ' []yes ® no
and/or public health?
6. Is the waste level within the structural freeboard elevation range for any waste structure? []yes ® no
Structure) Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier
Level (Inches) 35 1 35
CROP TYPES escue-graze 1cotton m soybeans Wheat1coastal Bermuda -graze I hmall grain overseed
SPRAYFIELD
SOIL TYPES CrB LeA BnA GoA NoB
7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section)
03/10/03

Facility Number 37 - 59 Date:
1/21104
PARAMETER
p+ No assistance provided/requested
❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site
❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed
Provided
❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard
25. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment
El❑
❑ 11. Level in storm storage
26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment
❑
❑
27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan wlproducer
❑
❑
❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised
❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance
28. Forms Need (list in comment section)
❑
❑
29. Missing Components (list in comments)
❑
Cl
❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs.
❑ 15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs.
30.21-1.0200 re -certification
❑
❑
❑ 16. Hydraulic overloading
31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA)
❑
❑
32. Irrigation record keeping assistance
❑
❑
❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records
® 18. Latelmissing waste analysis
33. Organize/computerization of records
❑
❑
❑ 19. Latelmissing lagoon level records
34. Sludge Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 20. Latelmissing soils analysis
❑ 21. Crop needs improvement
35. Sludge or Closure Plan
❑
❑
❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan
36. Sludge removal/closure procedures
❑
❑
37. Waste Structure Evaluation
❑
❑
❑ 23. Irrigation maintenance deficiency
❑ 24. Deficient sprayfield conditions
38. Structure Needs Improvement
❑
❑
39. Operation & Maintenance Improvements
❑
❑
40. Marker check/calibration
❑
❑
Regulatory Referrals
41. Site evaluation
❑
❑
❑ Referred to DWQ Date:
42. Irr}gation Calibration
❑
❑
[] Referred to NCDA Date:
43. Irrigation design/installation
❑
❑
El Other...
system
Date:
44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.)
U
❑
LIST IMPROVEMENTS
45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.)
❑
❑
MADE BY OPERATION
46. Wettable Acre Determination .
❑
Cl
1
-47.-Evacuate-WAfl-certlficationlrechecks.
_❑..
❑
48. Crop evaluationlrecommendations
❑
❑
constructed earth berm around recycle pump.
2.
49. Drainage worklevaluation
❑
❑
50. Land shaping, subsolling, aeration, etc.
51. Runoff control, stormwater diversion, etc.
❑
❑
❑
❑
3
52. Buffer improvements
❑
❑
53. Field measurements(GPS, surveying, etc.)
❑
❑
4.
54. Mortality BMPs
❑
❑
55. Waste operator education (NPDES)
❑
❑
5'
56. Operation & maintenance education
❑
❑
57. Record keeping education
❑
❑
6
58. Croplforage management education
❑
❑
59. Soil and/or waste sampling education
❑
❑
03/10/03

Facility Number 37 - 59 Date: 1 1/21104
MENTS:
'Waste plan dated 8119/03 including updated location map of facility, aerial photo of facility including spray fields, soils map,
updated application spreadsheet and revised narrative to include producer using most restrictive PAN due to crop rotation.
'Waste analysis dated 8126/03 nitrogen is sample #1=0.50 and sample #2=0.43 and sample #3=0.40
614/03 nitrogen is sample #1=1.2 and sample #2=1.2 and sample #3=0.97.
`Need to put soil test for 2003 in record book and when soil test for 2004 received place in record book. Soil test for 2003 at
farm supply office. Will recheck during op review 2005.
"Center pivot calibrated 718103
'Animal stocking records available.
'Crop yield records on site.
18. There is not a waste analysis to cover irrigation events on fescue from 3/24/03 thru 3/27/03. No over application
18. There is not a waste analysis to cover irrigation events on wheat for 2003 crop year. (3/24/03 thru 3/27103) Three events
'Lagoon freeboard level recorded weekly including rainfall events. Drops in lagoon are consistent with irrigation events.
'Farm is well maintained
TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IMartin McLawhom
SIGNATURE
Date Entered: 124104 Entered By: Martin McLawhorn
3 03/10/03

= O_°tvisioo of Water. Qualify
*.Division of Soil -and Water ConservationN
pOtherAgdhey
25
Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other p Denied Access
Facility Number (late of Visit: 02/03/20 31,1•ime: 930
p Not Operational O Below Threshold
Permitted E Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .........................
Farm Name: Sarem Farms, Inc. County: Gate& .................................................. .WAR.0_...
Owner Name: Sarem Farms, Inc. Phone No: 252-357-0503
MailingAddress: P.O.>lox.1.8,7............................................................................................. GatexAC...... ... .... ..... .............................................. 27.9.31-............
Facility Contact: ...............................................................................Title:...................... .... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Bandy-Lame................................................................................ Integrator: Carr.oll's.F.ontds..ot.VA,.Iac.................... ........ -
Certified Operator:Buudy,.H ............................... IAKLe ................................................... Operator Certification Number: 18215.............................
Location of Farm:
® Swine 13 Poultry p Cattle p Horse Latitude ®• ®� ®« Longitude ®• ®6
- -Design -urgent _ -<�Design. -Current Design Current
Swine.. Capacity Population Poultry. Capacity Population Cattle Capacityry Popplatior
[3 Wean to Feeder
p Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
p Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
p Boars
13 ayer
13 Non -Layer
on
p Other
Total -Design.Capacity 4,804
Total SSLW 2,078,400
= Number of Lagoons ^=
©
-
I]
u
surface
rains
resen p
agaon rea � pray ie re:i
Holding";Ponds,/ Solid: Traps_
System
[3
NoTiquid
Waste
Management
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: 0 Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes p No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) 0 Yes p 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) p Yes ❑ No
2. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p 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? 13 Spillway p Yes ®No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(inches): .............. 48............... ...................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ....................................

1
Facility Number: 37_$g Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 0 Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? p Yes ® No
{If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ 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 IN No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN p Hydraulic Overload p Yes ® No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Cotton corn Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? p Yes N No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? p Yes p No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes p No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? p Yes p No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? p Yes ®No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? p Yes ® No
Required Records & Documents
17.
Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
p Yes
N 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
® No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
p Yes
11 No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes
!1j 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)
p Yes
Cl 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
® No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
p Yes
® No
p o violations or deficiencies were noted urmg thisvisit. You will receive no turther correspondence about is visit.
omm6ii0; re er to question -: xp aut any ans ers'and/or any recommendations°'or any°othe comtiienis. 4,
a
Use draw►ngs of iacil�ty to better explain. situations (usc:additionat pages as pecessarq) Copy p Fin Notes
e .1[3Field al N
*Waste Plan includes pan rate for s/g overseed and corn. Field 1 P has been expanded and included in WUP with coastal bermuda graze
d fescue. Tract 112.
*Soil test for 2003 were taken during Jan 2003 - no results. Follow lime requirements.
*Waste analysis dated 6/21/02 nitrogen is 0.30 Ibs/1000 gallons
*Commercial fertilizer was applied to spray fields and nitrogen was deducted from PAN balances.
*Records are complete and balanced.
*Lagoon level is recorded weekly with drops in lagoon consistent with irrigation events.
*There were no irrigation events after 7/4/02 due to drought conditions and low lagoon levels.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Uj artm McLawhorn
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

R
0510.3101 Continuer)
Facility Number: 37_59 Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below 0 Yes Cl 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 p 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 IM 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 g No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? p Yes p No

(Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Lagoon Evaluation
lReason for Visit p Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other p Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 7/3I/2UO2 Time: 9:45
p Not 13perationalp Below Threshold
E Permitted 0 Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .•.••••.••..
Farm Name: Sarem Farms, Inc.
Owner Name: Sarem Farms, Inc.
Mailing Address: PO.Box.]&7............................................................
Facility Contact:
.................... Title:
County: Gatex.................................................. ..W-ARO.......
Phone No: 252-357-0503
.......I-.--- Gages...N.0................................................................ 2793.7 ..............
................................................... Phone No:
Onsite Representative: Buad,y..Laae................................................................................ Integrator: CarroU',S.E.Oads..of.3ZA,.Ins..............................
Certified Operator: Bundy-H............................... IARC ................................................... Operator Certification Number: IR21.5 ............................
Location of Farm:
1.5 miles west of on Sarem
N Swine ❑ Poultry p Cattle p Horse Latitude ®• ®� ®u Longitude ®• ®
Design - urrent > `Design Current Design Current
Sine .EapacEty� Population 3Poultry Capacity Population_ Cattle s Capacity Population
�- ra.,,.
p Wean to Feeder
p Feeder to Fmish
® Farrow to Wean
4718
p Farrow to Fee er
p Farrow to Finish
0 GiIts
13 Boars
on -
p Mir s
Total Design Capacity 4,800
Total SSLW 2,078,400
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? © Yes R No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes p No
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?
p Yes p No
p Yes p No
p 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 N No
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? 13 Spillway p Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): ................ 1)................ .............. .1.3i):.............. ................................... .................................... .................................... .............. ......................

t'acility Number: 37_5g
Date of Inspection
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage-, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
11. Is there evidence of over application? p Excessive Ponding p PAN p HydrauIic Overload
t
p Yes
® No
p Yes
N No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
Ig No
p Yes
®No
p Yes
®No
12, Crop type Fescue (Graze) Cotton, Corn Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? p Yes ig No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for Iand application? p Yes p No
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. 1s there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
19. Does record keeping need improved ehI i tic; ir„gatisr;, freeboard, wmaste anahisis- & snil cmmnle 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?
21 Fail -to notify regional_DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
23. Did Reviewcr/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
Yes p No
p Yes ❑ No
p Yes H No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes IN No
p Yes Ig No
p Yes ® No
p-Yes _N No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
p Yes H No
p o violations ortieliciencies were noted urmg this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about is visit.
Comments (refer tti question,#) r Eaplaw�any`YES answers agdlor any,�xecooimen ations or -any other comments: f �,. 5 `
.-.. s . Rww
[Ise draw�ngs:offacilltyto better'epla�mtua_>(use dditonal' 8 esasrnecessa� �° n'
p Feld Copy Final Notes
�g [3
-
r St-__ .' - i. 5�_ n.. cT.. -...--..::,+:.G;"d91Fy''79—Ok,"`G'.".Y'.e^e'i :r..•_r
* Soil test 2/8/02 with no lime required.
AL
* Waste 6/21/02 with sample 41 = 0.30 lbs N; #2 = 0.31 lbs N; #3 = 0.281bs N. Average of 3 samples from final
stage lagoon).
* WUP is still in the process of being amended in order to add the existing corn crops and small grain overseed.
Corn crops are included in narrative, however, it needs to be listed out similar to cotton crop per field with PAN
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 3)
"' v' ,P =-^r i ^' _?._ .T fit -. r {
Reviewer/Inspector Name ScotfxVmsanentered`by Ann Tyndall
.--
..-w-.�. ......s.. r-•..r �.. _... ... .�_ .- s _mod l'...
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: y

O5103101 Continued
i
Facility Number: 37_59 Date of Inspection 7131/2002
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor below 0 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? []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
Commercial fertilizer has been applied to cotton and corn
Records are balanced and well organized.
in FAN oatance on

1
071)rivts, h of Waer tQuality
r : O DIVISIon:af Satland �'Vater Conservation
ZZ
O C)ther Agency w _ r
Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility Number Date of Visit: 2113l2002 I'irnc: 8:45
O of Operational 013elowI'lireshold
® Permitted 0 Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: •-......................
Farm Name: Sarem Farms, Inc. County: Gates .................................................. W.ARO.......
Owner Name: Sarem Farms, Inc.
Mailing Address: PO..Rox.1.8.7............................................................
Facility Contact: ......................
....-Title:
Onsite Representative: Butidy..I.aae.........................................................
Certified Operator: Butidy-H............................... Lane.....
Location of Farm:
miles west oTNC 37 on Sarent
Phone No: 252-357-0503
Ga trs.'Ac................................................................ 2.7.931--.
Phone No:.....,.
Integrator: Carroll:iE..omds..oL.VA,.Inc...
.......... Operator Certification Number: 18215..................
® Swine [3Poultry ❑ Cattle [3Horse Latitude ®• ®� ®�� Longitude ®• ®
Design Current
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to FrTiish
® arrow to Wean
4780
❑ Farrow to Fee er
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design' . Current Design Current
'Poultry Capaeity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ ayer
❑ Non -Layer
© OtHer
Total Design Capacity 4,800
Total SSLW 2,078,400
m
Number of Lagoons 2 1[3 Subsurface Drains PresenFlIE3 Lagoon Area [3 Spray Metrea
Holding PaInds 7 Solid Traps- I ❑ No Mquid Waste Management System
Dischar$tes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑Spray Field [3 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) [3 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 titan from a discharge? ❑ Yes R No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard (inches): ...............3.5................................35...............................

Facility Number: 37-59 Date of lnspectiou
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes R 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 ®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 maintenancelimprovement? p Yes N No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? El Yes N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? []Yes N No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? Cl Yes N No
11. Is there evidence of over application? El Excessive Ponding p PAN p Hydraulic Overload p Yes N No
12. Crop type Fescue (Graze) Cotton, corn Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Small Grain Overseed
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(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/]nspector 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?
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
13 Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes H No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
p Yes ® No
El Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes N No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes H No
13 Yes ® No
p o violations or deficiencies were noted urmg this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about is visit.
Comments' refer to uestion
9 #):_ Explain any YES answers and/or any.recomme:ndations or arty other c©mtnegts
Ose drawings,of facility to better explatn;situati.ons.'(use additional pages as:necessary) ?0 Field Copy�p Final Notes
t
* WUP in process of being amended to include PAN for smallgrain overseed and corn.
* New land will be included in plan which is adjacent to center pivot. May delete approximately 7 acres to go into CREP.
* Soil test dated 2/8/02. No lime required. Cu & 2N within guidelines.
* Facility is pilot farm for EMS program.
* Waste analysis dated 9/13/01. Nitrogen is 0.53 lbs/1000 gallons.
* Lagoon freeboard levels are recorded weekly.
* Irrigation system is calibrated 2X years.
(continued on next page)
JWJ
Reviewer/Inspector Name ;Martin McLawhorn ... _ entered by Della Robbins
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

05103701
Continued
Facility Number: 37_59
Mile of Inspection
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
❑ Yes
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?
[]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? (Le. 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
* Records are complete & balanced.
* Farm is well maintained.
* Dike walls have been reseeded with fescue & appear in good condition.

Type of Visit p Compliance Inspection p Operation Review p Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit p Routine p Complaint p Follow up p Emergency Notification p Other p Denied Access
Facility Number
date of Visit: 9l26/2001 Time: 7.00 am Printed an: 912812QQ1
p Not Operatio'nal p Below Threshold
■ Permitted N Certified 13 Conditionally Certified p Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:. ..••
Farm Name: Sarem Farms, Inc. County: Gates .................................................... !ARO.......
Owner Name: Sarem Farms, Inc.
Mailing Address: RO..fox.1.81.................................................................
Facility Contact: ...............................................................................Title:
Onsite Representative: Burdy..l..arse.....................................................
Certified Operator: Rundy..................................... Une........
Location of Farm:
..5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem
Phone No: 252-357-0503
I......... Gatim..NC................................................................ 2793.7 ..............
................................................ Phone No:.................................
......... Integrator: Carroll's F.oads..otYA...1ric..............................
............. Operator Certification Number: I82.1.5..
N Swine p Poultry p Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude ®• ®° ®« Longitude ®.
Design Current Design -Current -Design,
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity' Populationn` ` Cattle' Capacity
p Wean to Feeder
p Feeder to finis
® Farrow to Wean
13 Farrow to Feeder
p Farrow to Finish
p Gilts
El Boars
p Layer
C on- ayer
nn
--
p Other
Total Design Capacity 4,800
Total SSLW 2,078,400
Number of Lagoons
13
u sur ace
rams
resent 13
agoon rea p pray Field Area
Holding Ponds /Solid Traps
E3
No Liquid Wasie
Management
System
Discharp,es & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ®No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes N No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) 0 Yes ® No
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? na
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes N No
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes to No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway p Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches): .5.9.......................S.Q...............................................................................................................................................................

Facility Number: 37_59 Date of Inspection ® Printed on: 9/28/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
0 Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? (if any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
[]Yes
g No
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?
❑ Yes
N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
M No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
[]Yes
M No
11, Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
M No
12. Crop type Fescue, Cotton Coastal Bermuda (Graze) Small Grain Overseed Corn
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
El 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?
❑ Yes
®No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
®No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
19.
Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
® No
20.
Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
®No
21.
Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
22.
Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
{ic'-discharge, freeboard problems; cver-p-pplicatinn;
p 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?
O Yes
® 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 turther correspondence about this visit.
Comments question #}; Explain anyYl+:S answers a:nd/ar any recomtnendahons or anypther comments r
`(refer..to
xl
Use'drawings of facilityto better epainsituatons t�(use additional pages as necessry)
a� Field Copy ❑ Final Notes '+
�. �A ,,j s
Records available for review.
Make sure to include small grain overseed and corn PAN allowance in the narrative of your waste plan.
Waste analysis 9/13/01 = 0.51 lbs; 6/25/01 = 0.77 lbs; 3/15/01 = 1.2 lbs; 1 1/16/00 = 0.83 lbs.
Soil analysis up through 2001; lime has been applied.
Irrigation records are complete and balanced out.
Freeboard levels are recorded weekly.
Irrigation equipment is calibrated several times throughout the year in the reel systems. SEE PAGE 3
Reviewer/inspector Name Lyn B. H rdison entered ,,by .Ann Tyndall
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

03 03101
Continued
Date of Inspection ® Printed on: 9/28/2001
Facility Number: 37_59
Odor Issues
26.
Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below
0 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.)
13 Yes
ONO
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
ractice weed control upon need. +
Grounds are well kept.
Make sure the lids remain once pigs are placed in bins. The bins are disinfected after each dump and aired out_
f you have any questions, contact your Technical Specialist or me at 252-946-6481, estension 318.

. AF
�F Michael F. Easley
Q1�\7 QG Govemor
7 William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
>_ : Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
To: Producers
From: Lyn B. Hardison
Environmental Specialist
Washington Regional Office
Date: October 3, 2001
Subject: Animal Compliance Routine Inspection
Year 2001
Enclosed please find a copy or copies of the Compliance Site Inspection(s) (as viewed in DWQ database) conducted at the
referenced facility by the Division of Water Quality from the Washington Regional Office. Please read this inspection and
keep with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, these inspections included verifying that: (1) the farm has a Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP);
(2) the farm is complying with requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, and the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan; (3) the farm operation's waste management system is being operated properly under the direction of a
Certified Operator; (4) the required retards are being kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or runoff.
As a reminder, please note the following which are conditions of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan and the general
permit; therefore, these items must be implemented:
(p The maximum waste level in lagoonststorage ponds shall not extend that specified in the CAVi MP. At a minimum.
maximum waste level for waste for lagoons/storage ponds must not exceed the level that provides adequate storage to
contain 25 year, 24 hour storm event plus an additional foot of structural freeboard
q) An analysis of the liquid animal waste from the lagoon shall be conducted as close to the time of application as practical and
at least within 60 days (before or after) of the date of application. This analysis shall include the following parameters:
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Zinc and Copper.
(p Soil analysis is required annually.
(p The following records are required: off -site solids removal, maintenance, repair, waste/soil analysis and land irrigation
records. These records should be maintained by the facility owner/manager in chronological and legible form for a
minimum of three years.
(p Land application rates shall be in accordance with the CAWMP. In no case shall land Mlication rates exceed the Plant
Available N trogcn (PAN) rate for the receiving crop or result in runoff !k=i any given application.
q) All grassed waterways shall have a stable outlet with adequate capacity to prevent ponding or flooding damages. The outlet
can be another vegetated channel, an earth ditch, stabilization structure, or other suitable outlets.
cp It is suggested not required to keep crop yield information for future use to update your waste management plan You will
need three years of crop yield data before your plan can be updated
(p The OTC has the duties to ensure that waste is applied in accordance with the CAWMP and General Permit by properly
managing supervising, and documenting daily operation and maintenance. The OIC also has the responsibility to certify
monitoring and reporting information. The failure of an OIC to perform his/her duties can result in a letter of reprimand.
suspension of certification, or revocation of certificates.
For your information, any swine facility that has a discharge to surface waters of the State will have to apply for a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the Division of Water Quality; effective January 1. 200 L
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any questions, please contact your Technical
Specialist or me at 252-946- 481, ext. 318.
Cc: WaRO
LBH Files (inspection form only)
943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 252.946-6481 (Telephone) 252-946-9215 (Fax)

- _ _ _
O Dtviis�on of Water Qaalth
Q_DiVis`ion:of-Soil`and rater Coaservatton - _ - -
Q Other Agency
Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection OQ Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation
Reason for Visit OO Routine O Complaint O Fallow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
y Number
Date of Visit: 5/23/200t Tim(-: 926 Printed on: 9212001
Facilit37 59
- -- — - 1 0 Not O erational - - - - p Q Belo«• Threshold
® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: .............
Farm Name: S.arty.lFitttrl9.Ip� ................_..._..--.- County: Gala......................_..._ V!'.t�i.Q.......
Owner Name: AMM.Farma,.hole.................................. Phone No: 252-.35.1.05.03 ..........................................................
Mailing Address: P0._lBu.L187......................... . Gales..NlG ..................... __...................................... 17.9,31-- ......
Facility Contact: ................................................................. .... Title: ... Phone No:
Onsite Representative:JB.u:n:dy..Laat�e............................................_.................................... Integrator: CArxWjfcmtda.af.vA, lJae..
Certified Operator: j3 y.....................................LAM .................................................. Operator Certification Number: ,18,215.................
.............. ............
Location of Farm:
!.5 miles west of NC 37 on Strem Rd. +
® Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ° 28 ' ®� Longitude 76 ° 47 ' t18 u
Design Current. Design Current = ' Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
4800
4800
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
❑ Layer ❑ Dairy r
❑ Non -Layer I I ❑ Non -Dairy
.❑ der
Total Design Capacity 4,800
Total sSM, 2,078,40a
Number of Lagoons 2 ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑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, notit} 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 irrrpact_s 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 a
Identifier: .....................
._ 36
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6

05103101
Condnued
Facility Number: 37-59 bate of Inspection 5/23/2001 Printed on: 9/21/2001
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑Yes
®No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
9. Do any stucture . lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload
❑ Yes
® No
12. Crop type Cotton SmaalI Grain Overseed Fescue (Graze) 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
Reuuircd Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ® No
18- Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) ❑Yes ®No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes ® No
20- Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ®No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ® 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
10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to -better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ' ❑Field Copy El Final Notes
�- -- - *Waste analysis dated 3/15/01 nitrogen is 1.2 lbs/1000 gallons
11/16/00 nitrogen is 0.83 lbs/1000 gallons.
*Time to secure new waste analysis. Discussed waste analysis / IRR2 schedule.
*Soil test dated 2/21/01. Lime not required.
*Lagoon level being recorded weekly as required by permit.
*Windows for fescue is year round application. Consult tech. spec. for plan amendment.
*Irrigation events after 5/15/01 rebalance MR2 using new waste analysis.
*Records are well organized.
Reviewer/InspectorName Martin•McLawhorn = ' _
Rovirworllnanartar Ciansetnrn. Data•

1 03103101 Continued
Facility Number: 37-59 Date of Inspection 5/23/2001 Printed on: 9/21 /2001
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 auv 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 fans) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or
or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.)
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover?
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover?
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No

Division of Water Quality
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type 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
Facility Number 37 59 Date of Visit. 9/5/2000 Time: 9:30 Printed on: 9/6/2000
0 Not Operational 0 Below Threshold
® Permitted N Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold ......................
Farm Name: S.Ur9m,F rn0.&,.plug. ...................................................................................... �'�
County: GAles.................................................. ARO.......
OwnerName: ................................................... '5RrCM..E4rM5..tp................................. Phone No: 25�: T:IJJ O........................................................
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
Mailing Address: 1'S?.sux..18.7............................................................ .....ill[:S..l!IG............................................. 2.797...............
Onsite Representative: B.UXtly..LOAIIC................................................................................ Integrator: CArK.RI)r.5.f9Qd5.9j.Y.A,. MC.......................
Certified Operator:B.glMdy.jL.............................. Lau .................................................. Operator Certification Number:j,&Zj,5 .............................
Location of Farm:
2.5 miles west of NC 37 on Sarem Rd. Ak
DD
N Swine ❑ Poultry ❑ Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 36 ° 28 4 30 " Longitude
Design Current
Swine Canacity Panulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
N Farrow to Wean
4800
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other 7-71
Total Design Capacity 4,800
Total SSLW 2,078,400
Number of Lagoons 2 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area ID 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? ❑ 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 N No
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes N No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes N No
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: ..........primary .......... ....... Smondary....... ................................... .................................... ----.......---.------......--------...---.------......-----.------..---.
Freeboard (inches): 40 40
einn

5/00 Continued on back
Facility Number: 37-59 Date of Inspection 9/5/2000 Printed on: 9/6/2000
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No
seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No
Waste Annlication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ®No
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit 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 reviewtinspection 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?
N,6.violatioiis:o:r defciencies•were;noted:d:uiring•thig wisit::You: Will:receive nb further
. - correspondence aboutf fhis.visit. ... ... .. .... .... ....
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ®No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes IN No
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments.
Use ciftwings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary):
Need to get a new waste sample. "
Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Carl Dunn Entered by Ann Tyndall

LReviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5/00 1
Facility Number: 37-59 Date of Inspection 9/5/2000 Printed on: 9/6/2000
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ® No
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ® No
30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fans) 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
S/60

Facility Number
Date of Inspection %^
Time of Inspection �24 hr. (hh:mm)
10 Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified [3 Registered JE3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
C
Farm,Name: ........................`�G re -
.•.....-......F'4..' S....-........ :......................... County:........... q'..CS.......................................................
Owner Name: .............................."[ , ................... Phone No:
.................................................................
Facility Contact:..............................................................................Title:..................................................-............. Phone No:
...................................................
MailingAddress:.........................................•..........................................................................----........-................... ..........................
Onsite Representative; ."^ AL �� e" ......I....... integrator: �'t��°�. �S �aoCS o. VQ r....•.
Certified Operator:.............. ^.^„ Operator Certification Number:..........................................
Location of Farm: I/
Latitude 0 ° 64 Longitude 0 4 46
- Design ._. `Current Design :.Current = 'Design- `=Current
$wine Ca acity .Population ,Poultry Capacity,==Population= .,_Cattle , Capacity -°Population..;
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
$oQ
❑ Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
®❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
»Number of.Lagoo
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps
❑ Subsurface Drains Present agoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 6.No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? El 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 KNo
3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes KNo
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 09JVo
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
r' ^—,f 5tra.j
Identifier:/
Freeboard (inches): �"� 0 If0
...................................................... ................................... ........... ......................... .................................... .......................... I.........
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes �fNo
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99 Continued on back

Facility Number: 3`� — S Date of inspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes JkNo
(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 KNo
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ®,No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes MNo
Waste Anolieation
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
®,No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
EANo
12. Crop type
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes
E(No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
KNo
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
4 No
16. Is there'a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
54No
Reauired Records & Documents
17.. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
C,No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(iel WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
KNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
d&No
20 Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
Ed No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
§4 No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
KNo
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
6, No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
I,No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
4ANo
oiatigns:oi' defeiencies V�ere jnotca dtx`tng this'visit: • Yott "rili'teceiye Rio rui•ther - : .
comes deice. abaitti this :visit: - • • • • • • .
Comments'{refer to:question #) ExplaiW any YES answers andlor any recommendations or any�Qther cornments
Use drawrrtgs of faciLty to etter;explartt'srtuatioirs, (use addrt,onal pages asmeressairy) :. A -r #
g
OV-ea 4o 5jt4 o, oP_ WIV54' 5' .
A.
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/InspectorSignature: Date: 00

Facility Number: 3r7 — 5 9 Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge attor below ❑ Yes ❑ No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes 1"o
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes efNo
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 MNo
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 MNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes 15 No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No
tao —
Q.IninC3i an Qr caweng3

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
October 13, 1999
Mr_ Bundy H. Lane
Sarem Farms. Inc
P. O. Box 187
Gates, North Carolina 27937
SUBJECT: Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
Sarem Farms. Inc
Facility No. 4 37- 59
Gates County
Dear Mr. Lane:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection (as it is
viewed in DWQ database) conducted at the referenced facility by the Division of Water
Quality from the Washington Regional Office_ Please read this inspection and Keep it
with all other documents pertaining to your animal operation for future inspections.
In general, this inspection included verifying that: (1) the farm is complying with
requirements of the State Rules 15 NCAC 2H.0217, Senate Bill 1217, the Certified Animal
Waste Management Plan and/or General Permit; (2) determine whether the waste
utilization plan is based on total or actual wetted acres; (3) the farm operation's waste
management system is being operated properly under the direction of a Certified Operator;
(4) the required records are being kept; (5) there are no signs of seepage, erosion, and/or
runoff.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation during the inspection. If you have any
questions, please contact me at 252/946-6481, ext. 318 or your Technical Specialist.
Sincerely,
Lyn . Hardison
Environmental Specialist
Cc: Gates MRCS
WaRO
LBH files
943 Washington Square Mali, Washington, North Carolina 276139 Telephone [phone]B1 FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

t
a
Facility Number �
E}:ate nt EnS:I�ecliun j]T
i-inte n1' i e:Eit•cti4M ® 24 hr. (hh:mm)
ig Permitted ® Certified p Conditionally Certified p Registered 13 Not OperationaDate East Operated:
Farm Name: Sarcw.E2rmsJmL........ _............................................................................. County: Gates WARO
Owner Name: Bu.uda..La.ue......................... Sarrsn.Farms..lnc.......
Facility Contact:
.......................................Title: ...................
Phone No: 252-35.7.-4SM....................
Phone No . .........................
MailingAddress: P.Q.Rox.1.8.7............................................................................................. Gatim..N.0 ................................................................ 2793.7 ..............
Onsite Representative: Bujkdl.L,ante................................................................................ Inteera[or:Carso)<Ia.koAeds of.YA.[ne..............................
Certified Operator:Bundy'.H ............................... Lane ................................................... Operator Certification Number. 1=5......... ....................
Location of Farm:
?.4.mi l�s..�uiest.Af, iY.C..7.. ant. a ri m.l d......................................................................................... ............
::i
Latitude ®• ®� ®� Longitude ®• ®� ®�
Swine Capacity Population
❑ Wean to ceder
❑ ee er to mis
® Farrow to Wean
❑ arrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
:Poultry' = Capacity .Population Cattle :Capacity :Population
❑ ayer ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 4,800
Total SSLW 2,078,400
Number of Lagoons �' ❑ u sur ace rains resent ❑ spoon yea ❑ pray ie Area
Holding Ponds /'Solid Traps '0 ❑ o LiquidWaste anagement. ystem
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 11 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon p 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? [3 Yes [3 No
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Spillway ❑ Yes ® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(inches):...............a6..........................................................................................................................
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
3/23/49 seepage, etc.)
❑ Yes ® No
Continued on hack

I
aci ny Number: 37-59 1)aic of III .lirctioll
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
❑ Yes
® No
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
N No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
p Yes
® No
Waste Avolication
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
p Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
®No
12. Crop type Cotton Cam Rye
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management flan (CAWMP)?
N Yes
❑ No
14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®No
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
p Yes
® No
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
®No
15. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
®No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
(ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.)
❑ Yes
®No
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes
®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?
❑ Yes
®No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes
®No
23. Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
®No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
®No
11 1Vo.vial tions or. defiriei>tcies.vvere.nhted during. h.i.v.i.i... -Yatrwill-receive na further.:.
1. .-ckr6e "dehCeO.64fthis.visit.-.-. ..-.-.-.-.-. ... . .. ...... .. . ...
Kecords available for review- Kemember to record teeboard levels weekly. Keep copies of soil analysis with records for future A&
inspections.
7. Continue: your efforts to establish vegetation on dike wall and down the side slopes. Slight erosion around house. Your plan is
o gravel up to* one house to eliminate erosion.
13. Bermuda/Fescue are not the desired crops. Suggest to revise plan to reflect crops grown and include one PAN when more soil
types present...;
Reviewer/Inspector Name TL" nHardisori E tered by Ann Tyndall
_
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: h ��� Date.

3/23199
Facility Number: 37_59 1):tft tai 1! srw! -tioll 1 7fLM177 1
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below p 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? 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? © Yes III 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 ® No
iuverau, the tactury is very wets managers. xeep up the goors worK.
lf you have any questions, please contact me at 252-946-6481, extension 318.
J

Division of Soil iifd %ter?Conservatson - Operation Review
n
=.
;_ E3 Division of Soil and Water Conservatson. Compliance inspection
® Division -of Water ah om Ranee Ins Qu ty C- p , .. pection
:. 13 Other Agency. Operation 1Review #' w
J® Routine Q Complaint Q Fallow -up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number 7 j Date of Inspection —2 -
Time of Inspection % � 24 hr. (hh:mm)
® Permitted ® Certified © Conditionally Certified Q Registered. [3 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
5a r 4 ............. ... County-
.......... .-............. s.................
Farm Name: .....................+°-(?�.�+ .'�'!.................. ........-........... -
Owner Name: 1-. t. Phone No:......2....-.3s7.-.�%��a........................ h. ........ Gs 1. �........... ........... .........................................
FacilityContact: ...................................... ............................... Title: ................................................................ Phone No:
'failing Address: ....?:.p... 001 f ,.... .... .............................. ..........��. er.......................... '................ ..Z7�3. ..
Onsite Representative:...�z! S .............(..?:...!.�................................. .... .... Integrator:.... h'A.. i. `?...... .... .............................
...
Certified Operator: ...�....�..h n�... ................ Operator Certification Number: i f A5,•
............................................. .............................................................
Location of Farm:
�...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�
Latitude Longitude
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine ;. Capacity Po elation_ , Poultry Capacity -.Population Cattle Capacity Potation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
IM Farrow to Wean
ar}
7 Iz—
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Number of Lagoons JEI nt Subsurface Drains Prese❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area
Holding Potids / 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. Dues 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
Identifier: 11
Freeboard(inches): ........-36................................................... ...... .............. ................ .... ...................... I........ .-.-.
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes JQ No
❑ Yes ® No
w 1(
❑ Yes ,® No
❑ Yes E�No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes 0 No
Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
seepage, etc.)
3/23/99
❑ Yes A No
Continued on back

Facility Number- 3
Date of Inspection
6- Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan?
(If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
7. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
8- Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement?
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings?
Waste Application
10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
-24-R9
❑ Yes --CRNo
Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
[9 No
❑ Yes
® No
11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Yes ® No
12- Crop type CO.r
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?
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?
.: Vo•viol'atioris:ot- deficiencies •mere noted• di.tit:ing this'visit. - Y:oii :will•receiye rio further - :.: -
corresponcierzce. abnuf th' Isit_ ....... .....:. _ ... . .... .
❑ Yes R No
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes �LNo
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ff Nc,
❑ Yes EKNo
❑ Yes B No
❑ Yes .53 No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes W3 No
❑ Yes ONo
❑ Yes [KNo
❑ Yes RjNo
[Atuse.drawings.
omments (refer to question I#):^aExplain any YES. answers and/or any -recommendations or any other comments..
of facility to 44fiir explain situations. (use additionaFµpages as necessary)
L+ M �Qm b c►r - h� t a r kr U baa ►red r _ _
1*6
—17
--
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Vn t; $ - W -
Sts,-, t
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Date: 5- 2.¢ 1
3123/99

Facility Number: 37 — 59 Date of Inspection
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes &No
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes [S'No
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes KNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
.29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface,of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ERNO
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 RNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ONo
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes 0 No
AAditional Comments and/orDrawings: -= r
3/23/99

Facility Number: 3i — s9 Date of ]nspection
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or
closure plan? ❑ Yes -_&info
(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 19 No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level
elevation markings? ❑ Yes E9 No
Waste Annlication
10.
Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is there evidence of over application? El Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN
❑ Yes
® No
12.
Crop type Q)
13.
Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
aYes
❑ No
14.
a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
RNo
b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
RNo
c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination?
❑ Yes
�LNo
15.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
Required Records & Documents
17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available?
❑ Yes ff 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 ZNo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes [9 No
20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes .� No
21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes ® No
22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit?
(ic/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application)
❑ Yes V3 No
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 59rNo
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes R�No
vioiaiicjr. . ..... eu. were . . . .during �his:visit; You wail receive iio' #'ur#her
corres 6iidence: a oUA this visit.: ' ' ' .... . ' :::::: ' :: '
mrnents (refer to question #): Explain any. YES answers imd /6r any recommendations or,any other comments.=
PC
e;drawingsof facility tolbetter;explain situations. ,(use.a2lditional:pages,as necessary):
�t-ru�m6,v- 4-h.c_c,ar-d�-ban-►-�
�'�-
-415
L`'
Reviewer/Inspector Name i
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5— 7-4- �99
3/23/99

Facility Number: 37 - 59 Date of Inspection S-z4-99
Odor Issues
26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below [:]Yes allo
liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation?
27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes C�Mo
28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes KNo
roads, building structure, and/or public property)
29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface.of the lagoon? ❑ Yes [BaVo
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 RNo
31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes 0No
32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ,® No
AAditionall Conunents and/or or rawmgs: _
.�-- --
7"
3/23/99

Io Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Facility Number 37 59 Date of Inspection 6/22/98
Time of Inspection 915 24 hr. (hh:mm)
13 Registered ® Certified ® Applied for Permit 0 Permitted 10 Not Operational I Date Last Operated: .......
FarmName: Sarr mj..al XW..lnc. ....................................................................................... County: Gates.................................................. WA.R.O.......
OwnerName: ................................................... SAMMIMMS.Inc ................................... Phone No: 9.19.M.7.-QSQ3...........................................................
Facility Contact: BuRdY.1Banc.................................................... Title: knjident ........................................... Phone No: 252/3,57.-.UQj .......................
MailingAddress: P.t)Bo.R.18.7............................................................................................. Gates..NC..................................... ........................... 17.9,37 .............
Onsite Representative:
Integrator: C.acrall:a. twds..Qf..A..Lae................................
Certified Operator:$tmdy.H............................... Lam .................................................. Operator Certification Number: .182.15.............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 ° 28 30 Longitude 76 ° 47 OS
'Design _`Current'.
Swine - Capacity Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
4800
4800
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
umber of Lagoons / Holding Pom
- _
Design Current
Design Design -:Current
Poultry
Capacity -Population Cattle -
Capacity Population
❑ Laver
1
10 Dairy
10 Non -Laver
I
JE3 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
4,800
Total SSLW
2,078,400�
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovemenl?
Subsurface Drains Present
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ)
a 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 Stale other than from a discharge?
Area J❑ Spray Field Area
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/7i/Q7
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No
❑ Yes N No

--
K-onwruea on nacx
Facility Number: 37-59 Date of Inspection 6/22/98
8. Are there lagoons or,storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
❑ Yes
® No
Structures tLagoons.Holding Ponds. Flush -Pits, etc.)
9- Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
® No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure: 5
Structure 6
Identifier: I R1[1a W.••--....-...... SFkWadw..... I ..............
Freeboard(ft): ............... 1: ............. I................ 2:3............... ...... .................................... ....................................
....................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
® No
IL Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
® Yes
❑ No
Waste Avylication
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. p type ....................... Cgja u.................................Qxja .............................................................................................................
16- Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
❑ Yes
® No
17- Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
19- Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
®No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
21- Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
22- Dees record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Onlv
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 :No:vio'lations or_deficiencies.were•noted•doring this:visit. You.will"receive no further".
:correspondence atioitt this:visit: ; :.. ....... .... ...
Comments-(r eir 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): - -
* Waste utilization plan - in process of revising plan to include additional acres with options for corn, soybeans and wheat (Kevin 6
Davidson with Agriwaste Technology is WUP technical specialist). No grass on site. Plan's nitrogen balance will be based on cotton
since it's most limiting factor. Acreage more than adequate.
* Will be applying fresh water to crops in addition to waste
* In process of securing operation parameters from Gilliam Mason for IRR2 set-up.
* Pulled waste analvsis in May but has not received results. initial pumping started 4129/98 - has 60 days to secure sample
* Mr. Lane is keeping application amounts but needs acreage per pull information (operating parameters), waste analysis and PAN for
appropriate crop - no over application has occurred
COMMENTS CONTINUED ON PAGE 3
v
Reviewer/Inspector Name Pat Hooper
ReviewerlInsnector Signature: Date:

Of
Facility NumMr' 37 59
Q Registered ❑-, Certified ® Applied for Permit 0 Permitted
ow -up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection 9/18/98
Time of Inspection 13:00 24 hr. (hh-mm)
0 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
FarmName: Sacem l atxpse lA&....................................................................................... County: Oates.................................................. WA.R.O.......
Owner Name: ................................. ................. Sutem.F,arms.luc................................... Phone No: 214.-3S7-0S.03...........................................................
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone No:
MailingAddress: P.f1.&I.18.7............................................................................................. Gales ..NC ................................................. .............. 27937.............
Onsite Representative: B.WWy.l atic................................................................................. Integrator: CatxoU:S.FItodS..ltl..Y..a.ills..............................-
Certified Operator: $andy1L .............................. LIUM .................................................. Operator Certification Number: 1821_r .............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude 36 ° 28 30 � Longitude 76 ° 47 OS u
Swine
Design -
Capacity..
❑ We to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
------ ---------
Poultry Capacity Population - Cattle - Capacity .Population ---
❑ Laver ❑Dairy _-
`. ❑ Non -Layer 10 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity 4,800
Total SSLW1 2,078,400
-Number of Lagoons-/ Holding Ponds ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
- - - ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System - - -
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any pail of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed. did it reach Surface Water? (If yes. notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. It discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notity DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
® No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
® No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
® No

Facility Number: 37-59 Date of inspection 1 9/18/98
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
t.urrunuea on DUCA
❑ Yes ® No
Structures tLagoons,liolding Ponds, Flush Pits. etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® No
Structure I Structure 2 Structurc 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Ideutifvr: ..........Ruin ial................. Adm....... ........
Freeboar4ll: ........ ..............................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13_ Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? ® Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes ® No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type.......1Karn.MU9.&.QEaW............... aasta] s td as ...... ....................... U1t9m..........................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ® No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
® No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
® No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
® No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
® No
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
❑ Yes
® No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Oniv
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
® No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
0 .No.violations: or deficiencies.were.00ted_during this.visiti_ You will:rece.ve no further-
:correspondeuce about this'visif.: ::... • . ::::. _ .... .
Comments (refer to. question,#):. Explain any YES-answers-and/4 any recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): In process of being permitted. Farm was certified for 4800 animals, however a portion of the waste plan is for only 4650 animal units. r
This is holding up the permit.
Old marker floated away. Will put in new marker.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Carl:Dunn _T = _
= -
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

....,
# E3 Division of Soil and Water Conservation^. ® Other Agency �
n ® Division of Water Quality
- ..; `c�' ;, $x .a ��i,-- -�„< ., ,., _ _ , - .. - f'".z`.'-;,ns+�.�'""-�zzw.-�T^s�' q�✓5 . ��' ac<
® Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other
Date of Inspection
E__ Facility Number 3 59
Time of Inspection J ' ov 24 hr. (hh:nun)
©Registered ®Certified ®Applied for Permit ® Permitted 113Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
FarmName: ....................... sett►,\...........�r"5........................................................ County:.....................!...e5........................I...... .......................
Owner Name: ..................................................5"rf''-V .$ <............................. Phone No:
• . ................. ...................................................................................................
FacilityContact: 4k„.................:`.G................................. Title:,............................................................... Phone No:...................................................
MailingAddress:..................................................... ......
Onsite Representative:...........!". .....Z""e.........
Certified Operator, .................. �^ L""e-
.. f..................................................
Location of Farm:
Integrator:.........., ro l 1.5.................................... ................
Operator Certification Number;.......... ......
Latitude 0 0` 0" Longitude 0a ' 0"
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
y jpJ
y 890
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
x s Design ' ;' Current "
Poultry Capacity Population
a ❑ Layer
❑ Non -Layer
771
Cattle , Capacity, ::;Population.
❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
2. 10 Subsurface Drains Present_) ❑ Lagoon Area ILJ Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System -
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes M No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 91 No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system`? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes ® No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes ® No
7, Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes ® No
7I25/97

Facility Number:
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yea ® No
Structures [L mns.Holding Ponds,Eusb Fil$,.etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes RNo
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(ft)............... 9.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ® No
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes ® No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 0 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? 51 Yes ❑ No
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes F1 No
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type �sc. Cot.lo j�..,-�e.................................... .................................................. .................. I ........ .....
......................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes I.No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes O No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? - ❑ Yes (H No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 19 No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes 12 No
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes BNo
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes M No
Certifiedr ECEMItted FacilitW Oft
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes ® No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes M No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No
(3• No:vialitioni-4 deficiencies: were•noted•dtiring this:visit:•.You:ceill, recei�e•nti-fiirthe'
00r;respoade�ce about this' V16 �.' ... :...... : .
Tr rro cQsS J .�(,�5 rff -. I l� ,
Far. L/rsi CIZJ(Xa `'r Lt.9+0
WLAI' iy liV 4f,sO 4n;. t yw.�S. 14'5, i5
13, N„_1 W")Vy- b•4 Vefv(r53 0-r p_415 re., , Vtr,
7/25/97
'
Name �`,
Signature: _ Qza Date: o- 1$- ?Z5

f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A19A
Washington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E 0 N
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
July 16, 1997 I?ECE1v�o
i'rri 1l111GTON OFFIC9
Mr. Bundy Lane, President
Sarem Farms Inc. JUL 1 8 1997
Post Office Box 187
Gates, NC 27937 �$ F. M.
SUBJECT: Operation Review Summary & Corrective Action Recommendation for
Sarem Farms Inc.
Facility No. 37-59
Gates County
Dear Mr. Lane,
On July 9, an Operation Review was conducted of Sarem Farms Inc., Facility No. 37-59. This
Review, undertaken in accordance with G.S. 143-215.1 OD, is one of two visits scheduled for all
registered livestock operations during the 1997 calendar year. The Division of Water Quality
will conduct a second site inspection.
During the Review, It was determined that waste was not being discharged to the waters of the
State, and the animal waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal systems were operated
under the responsible charge of a certified operator. A copy of the completed review form is
enclosed for your information. The following observances, questions, and management
deficiencies were discovered and noted for response or corrective action:
- As promised, I tried to find out the status of your facility's general permit with DWQ but
I've not had a response from the Permits and Engineering section to date. The
database still has your operation at 2,640 sows farrow to finish, and shows that you
have applied for your general permit. Since your certified animal waste management
plan reflects 4,800 sows farrow to wean plus 50 boars, I feel your permitted operating
number needs to reflect these same numbers. Hopefully we can get the boars added to
your recertification number of 4,800 sows. As requested, I will also send a copy of this
correspondence along with the Operation Review report to Dr. L.M. Safley with Agri -
Waste Technology, Inc. so that your technical specialist can reexamine the calculations
to ensure the waste management system can facilitate the maximum herd size.
- I also ask that your technical specialist reexamine the total steady state live weight
(SSLW) calculations for your operation. Using NRCS coefficients, I've calculated the
total SSLW at 2,098,400 lbs. which differs from the design's LAW calculations. (See
comments on page 3 of the Review form and attachments.) While I feel fairly confident
your system can facilitate the maximum herd size, I want to ensure this is the case by a
reexamination of the calculations.
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889-3532 Telephone [phone] FAX 919/975-
3716
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Mr. Bundy Lane
July 16, 1997
Page 2
- The waste utilization plan calls for cotton, fescue and bermuda grass in the spray
fields; however cotton was the only implemented crop at the time of the Review. While
there is no immediate need to apply waste due to excessive storage in the secondary
structure, the waste utilization plan still needs to be either revised if cotton is to remain
in all fields, or the required crops need to be planted and established according to the
current waste utilization plan. I also noted that a traveling gun system will be installed
on the operation this fall.
- A pumping marker needs to be installed in the secondary structure. Please contact
your technical specialist for assistance in calibrating the marker.
• Vegetation did not establish on waste structures, grassed waterway, around houses,
etc. due to lack of rain. Continue efforts to establish grass, and repair eroded areas as
needed.
- Remove plastic and other foreign materials from inside of lagoon 1.
You will need to secure and maintain the following documents or records: an
emergency action plan; completed odor and insect control checklists; annual soil sample
reports for spray fields; waste analysis reports to be taken within the 60 days before or
after land application of waste; and irrigation records once land application begins.
Please remember that in order for your facility to be in compliance with environmental
regulations, animal waste cannot be discharged into the waters of the State, and the animal
waste collection, treatment, storage and disposal systems must be properly sized, maintained
and operated under the responsible charge of a certified operator.
The Division of Soil and Water Conservation appreciates your cooperation with this Operation
Review. Please do not hesitate to call me at 919/946-6481 if you have any questions, concerns
or need additional information.
Sincerely,
?a,Okrt,�
Pat Hooper
Environmental Engineer I
cc: Gates Soil and Water Conservation District
Dr. L.M. Safley, P.E. with Agri -Waste Technology, Inc.
Division of Water Quality - WaRO
DSWC WaRO Files

s
■ DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review -
DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
l* nouune o s-ompiamt p roiiow-up of Lwtj inspection o rouow-up of vaw%- review p viaer l
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection jj:jU 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Farm Status: o Registered 0 Applied for Permit
■ Certified p Permitted n. clod
p Not Oper Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Sarem Farms, Inc. County: Gatti .................................................. ..WARO.......
OwnerName: . . ................................... . ... . ............•..................... Phone No: 919-35.7.-0503............................. .............................
Facility Contact: Bundy.JA=............. ... .... ..._......................... Title: Rresidrml ........................................... Phone No: 9191357-05Q3.......................
Mailing Address: EO.Box.187.........................................................................................Gatcs...Nc ................................................................ 2793.7 ..............
Onsite Representative: Bundy -Lane ... ........... _............................................................... Integrator: CairxolP.s.Eoods.of..Y.AJnc...
Certified Operator: Rundy.JEL ............................... Law .................................................. Operator Certification Number:18215 .............................
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®• ®6 ®K Longitude ®• ®4 ®�
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population
p Layer
p Non -Layer
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to ean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to inis
13 Other
Design - Current
Cattle Capacity Population
Maim
_-
Total Design Capacity 2,640
.. Total SSLW ,
I Number of Lagoons 1 Holding Ponds © p u sur ace rams resen t1 agoon rea p pray ie rea I
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? n Yes B No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? n Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) p Yes a No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? N/A
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) [3 Yes R No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ® No
4/311/97 maintenance/improvement?

Facility Number: 3 7_59 '
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes ENO
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes ® No
S. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? p Yes ® No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes ® No
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
............... 3.Q................ ... ........... 1.2.Q............... ...................................... ............. .......................... ... ........ ........................... ... •..................................
10, Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....................... G atma....... ....................... .......................................................................... ..
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities Only
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
® Yes p No
l3 Yes N No
p Yes ® No
® Yes 17 No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
® Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes N No
® Yes p No
p Yes ® No
Comments (refer to_question N).-- Explain any YES answers.and/or any recommendations or any other -comments.
Use drawings of faerility toybetter `expiain situattons.-(use additional pages as necessary)
Structure 1 is primary lagoon; structure 2 is holding pond. No subsurface drainage on site according to
Mr. Lane.
12. New structures - vegetation did not emerge on site due to lack of rain - continue to work at establishing grass on embankments.
Need to remove foreign material from lagoon.
13. Required at time of Review - Mr. Lane planning to install soon
16. Waste utilization plan calls for cotton, fescue and bermuda grass; however only growing cotton at this time with intent to go to
gasses in future. There is no immediate need to apply waste due to available storage in structures. Plan needs to be either revised i
cotton is to remain in fields or the required crops need to be planted and established prior to waste application.
19. Planning to install traveling gun system in fall of 1997. Irrigation specialist is Billy Gilliam.
continue on page 3.
Reviewer/Inspector Name iPat Hooper
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:2��� �s V Date:

r
Facility Number: 37_59 Date of Inspection
4/30/97

6
Routine p Complaint p Follow-up of DWQ inspection p Follow-up of DSWU review p Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
' 1'ViOa l iiYW lfY11 AYNVm Vl llVYl.7
Farm Status: 13 Registered U Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review
0 Certified p Permitted `orUspw—`tiori (incIud`e`s_tiavel,and processing))
p Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Sarem Farms, Inc. County: Gates .................................................. WARO.......
Owner Name: ................................................... Sarm.Earjus.1ric .................................. Phone No: 919r35.7.-050.3 ....... ...... ............................. ....... I........
Facility Contact: Rundy..Lana....................................................Title: Presidimt........................................... Phone No: 9.1913.5.7.A.W................ ........
Mailing Address: JNO.Rox.1.87............................................................................................ Gatm..Mc ................................................................ 279.3..7..............
Onsite Representative: Bundy -Lane ................................................................................ Integrator: CarroA's.Eauds.of..Y.A..Iuc..............................
Certified Operator: Ru.ndy.IL .............................. Lat►e.................................................. Operator Certification Number: 1.8215........................
.....
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®• ®A ®u Longitude ®• ®4 ®«
Type of Operation Design _ . 'Current"" = Design Current ` - Design -.Current.
(Swine Capacity 'Population .Poultry °;Capacity Population- Cattle Capacity Population
p Wean to Feeder
E3 Feeder to mis
® arrow to Wean
13 Farrow to FeeTeTr
❑ Farrow to Finish
p Other
Number of Lagoous / HoIdtng Panels � ❑ u sur ace Drains PresFnt 13 agoon rea I] pra�rea
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? p Yes ® No
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon I] Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ® No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes N No
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin? N/A
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) 0 Yes H No
3. is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? p Yes ® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require p Yes ® No
maintenance/improvement?
4/30/97

acility Number: 37-59
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? p Yes N No
7. Did the facility 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 N No
Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding Ponds)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? p Yes a No
Freeboard (ft): Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
...3.fl................ ......120........................................................................................................................................................
............ ......... ........
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(if any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type ....................... Cotton ...................... ......................................................................................................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
For Certified Facilities Onlv
22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
24. Does record keeping need improvement?
p Yes
® No
p Yes
ONO
H Yes
p No
p Yes
N No
p Yes
........................... I...................
H No
® Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes N No
N Yes p No
p Yes ®No
p Yes N No
p Yes N No
N Yes p No
p Yes ® No
Comments (refer tq question; #) Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or;any other comments.
Use drawmgs`of fa6110.to better�ex lain situati©ns (u"se^additional pages as'©ecessgry)- _ _
p - T-
Structure 1 is primary lagoon; structure 2 is holding pond. No subsurface drainage on site according to� _
Mr. Lane. �
12. New structures - vegetation did not emerge on site due to lack of rain - continue to work at establishing grass on embankments.
Need to remove foreign material from lagoon.
13. Required at time of Review - Mr. Lane planning to install soon
16. Waste utilization plan calls for cotton, fescue and bermuda grass; however only growing cotton at this time with intent to go to
rses in future. There is no immediate need to apply waste due to available storage in structures. Plan needs to be either revised i
otton is to remain in fields or the required crops need to be planted and established prior to waste application.
19. Planning to install traveling gun system in fall of 1997. Irrigation specialist is Billy Gilliam.
continue on page 3.
Reviewer/Inspector Name 1,PatHooper _ e
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:

i
ace i y Number 37_59 Date of Inspection
4/30/97

j[] DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
® DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection
:..,
t0 Routine 0 Cum laint 0 Follo-w-up of DW( ins action 0 Follow-up of DS1t'C review 0 Other
Facility Number
Date of Inspect loll 11-�I-97
Time of Inspection !l7•'t7 U 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Registered 0 Certified J3 Applied for Permit
13 Permitted JE3 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:
Farm lame: Jq ►n ! qi i �nc .
County' �sr,
County: •......................�.....................................:.......................
Owner Name ..... a411c- #'Ml'w'S..........�K....
..................
... Phone No: 110 S ? �v �
................... ....................Z.............................
Facility Contact : .............. Q H � �:/..........,... .... Title:................ ...... ... Phone No:...................................................
................
P Pay 1 g 3
Mailing Address: !
Onsite Representative :............ '"" a.........j"G!e.............................................
.......... Integrator; .......... �11/5.....................
Certified Operator e.................................
p
.
.. ........................ Operator Certification Ni€mher:.--................................ .
Location of Farm:
Latitude • 1 49 Longitude * 4 <
Design Current
Swine Capaeit.y Population
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
® Farrow to Wean
1•j¢Dp
+ 7 S0
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design . Current
Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer I I ❑ Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity
Total SSLW
C
G
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds ` ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement.'
r
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notiijr DWQ)
c. if discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in �,alhnin?
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 laQoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
5. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25197
❑ Yes 9No
❑ Yes IM No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes V No
❑ Yes 14 No
❑ Yes bd No
❑ Yes VrNo
❑ Yes V No
Continued on back

Facility Number: ' 7 — S9
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (Laeoons,tfoldiniz Ponds Flush Pits etc.
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3^ Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: n Aye/ ^a` �FJ
'GO f!t {lo✓�tf
..........
Freeboard(ft): 2 .......................... : .............................................................................................
.....................:..............
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type .........C_4P3 i°••........-. ..�.......... r`^ I
er...,^.......................... ................. ............................................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
0 No.violations or deficiencies. were noted- during this,visit. Nou.will receive- no further
correspondence about this:visit.,.
Comments (refer.to question #): Expla►n. any YES answers and/or any recom
Use,drawings of facility to:better;explain situations. (use additional psa as n
i)-r NQy I.)o,,,s , 111r f_ S-,$T 6,-e2 seeW .
�ed 4a 6r./ yf+. rlto,-f5,
Flni+.- Py 6k oY
❑ Yes V No
❑ Yes V No
Structure 6
❑ Yes KNo
❑ Yes No
Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes V] No
❑ Yes )i No
❑ Yes
k No
❑ Yes
IX No
❑ Yes
19 No
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ Yes
10 No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes
No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Mr-45V I n �5n S7 S,4 C WN r
�''-- s.4,ie, 4L P*j 4. ,
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name 2tiLn�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: � � Dater T7 ._

wc, h, 6
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Washington Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 30, 1997
Mr. Bundy Lane
PO Box 187
Gates NC 27937
Subject: Annual Compliance Inspection
Facility Number 37-59
Gates County
Dear Mr. Lane:
On 11/21/97, Carl Dunn from the Washington Regional Office of the Division of Water
Quality conducted an inspection of your swine operation. This inspection is one of two annual
inspections as required by Senate Bill 1217. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation will also
conduct an inspection of your intensive livestock operation during the 1997 calender year.
Please review the enclosed inspection form. This inspection form should be maintained as part
of the records for your facility. Take special notice to any items that may marked with a yes answer.
You are advised that you must maintain a freeboard of at least one foot in your lagoon(s) plus a storage
volume sufficient to accommodate the rainfall and any subsequent runoff from a 25 year 24 hour storm
event to remain in compliance.
Thank you for your cooperation in this inspection. If you have any questions in regard to this
letter or if I may be of any assistance, I can be contacted at [phone] ext- 208. Please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Carl Dunn
Environmental Engineer
cc: WaRO Files ✓
Gates County NRCS
943 Washington Square Hall, Washington. North Carolina 27889 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

r
" p Division of Soil and Water Conservation p Other Agency
-_
r 0 Division of Water Quality ,
Routine p Complaint p Follow-up of DWQ inspection p Follow-up o review p Utber
Date of Inspection 197
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm)
p Registered N Certified 0 Applied for Permit p Permitted 13 NotUperano-n— Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: Sarum.Eatms,.lac.................... ......_........ ........................... County: Gates WARO
Owner Name: ................................... . ... . ......... SairnmFarms.Inc.... ............................ Phone No: Wz35.7.=0503..__. .......................... -....................
Facility Contact: ................................................ ............_..............Title: .. Phone No:
Mailing Address: RO..Hox.I87................................... -.......................................................
Gatex..KC........................
_.....
........ ...................... Z79-1.7_..............
Onsite Representative: Bu dy..Lame................... ..... _.............................. . Integrator......................:...
Certified Operator:Bundy:.H........_..................... Lane................................................... Operator Certification Number: 18215............... .............
Location of Farm:
Latitude ®• ®' ®" Longitude ®• ' 08"
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? p Yes ® No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: p Lagoon 13 Spray Field p Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yds, 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?
_ 13 Yes..
® No
p Yes
p No
p Yes
p No
p Yes
p No
p Yes
.® No
p Yes
® No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/'improvement?
G. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
p Yes ® No
p Yes H No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
p Yes ® No

act ity Number: 37_59
r
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed?
Structures (L,ailoons,Holding Ponds,. Flush Pits, etc.l
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier:....primary!................secondary
Freeboard (ft): 2.8 6
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
Structure 4
11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an
immediate public health or environmental threat, notifv DWQ)
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application?
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
Structure 5 Structure 6
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
® Yes p No
p Yes ® No
p Yes g No
15. Crop type __...C=.(Silage.& Grain) ......................... .....Cntlon............................Coast Bermutia.Grass.............................1:'cscuc_...................
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)?
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application?
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement?
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
21, Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
22. Does record keeping need improvement?
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Onlv
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
R . oviqtions.or erencies-were-note uKgK t rs vtstt. - om W� .reeeive nc further.,
,qejTesponOvuep 4N1Rt lt�115 YiSi :
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ®No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes ® No
p Yes p No
Reviewer/Inspector Name Carl Dunn 7'-"
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: