Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout820343_Compliance Inspection Routine_20210623Facility Number 9 Division of Water Resources 611 /p .a O Division of Soil and Water Conservation 4' 0 Other Agency Type of Visit: $ Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance Reason for Visit: 16 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access Date of Visit: Farm Name: Arrival Time: Owner Name: ?rettl e c5‘b `(irm5 INC Mailing Address: Physical Address: Facility Contact: J 1 gm) Departure Time: Owner Email: Phone: County:Ga f f J f N Region: fed Title: Phone: Onsite Representative: v Integrator: Ct-P,C.6-Nge Certified Operator: de ack-up Operator: ocation of Farm: Latitude: Certification Number: Certification Number: Longitude: 04 NU C(*eirti Swine Design Current Capacity Pop. Wean to Finish Wean to Feeder Feeder to Finish Farrow to Wean Farrow to Feeder `j000 Farrow to Finish Gilts Boars Other Design Current Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Layer Non -Layer Dry Poultry DesignCurrent Capacity Pop. Layers Non -Layers Pullets Turkeys Turkey Pouets Other Cattle Design Current Capacity Pop. Dairy Cow Dairy Calf Dairy Heifer Dry Cow Non -Dairy Beef Stocker Beef Feeder Beef Brood Cow Discharges and Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other: a. Was the conveyance man-made? b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) 2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? 3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑Yes No ❑NA ❑NE ❑ Yes cz No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes p No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ Yes NA ❑NE ❑ NA ❑ NE El NA ❑NE Page 1 of 3 5/12/2020 Continued Facility Number: 5Q - Waste Collection & Treatment Date of Inspection: 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? Structure 1 Identifier: Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): Observed Freeboard (in): ❑ Yes NkNo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE St cture 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes \No ❑ NA ❑ NE (i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes 6No 0 NA ❑ NE waste management or closure plan? If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR 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 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement? 11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes b. No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes allo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ra No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) ❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil ❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area 12. Crop Type(s): CO(2tL1 &tmudw, &O (EJ rat€cl ) 13. Soil Type(s): 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? 15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acres determination? 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? 18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? Required Records & Documents 19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other: ofv, 694-nhotA c/c613. '�. ❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA 0 NE ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes rallo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE No ❑ NA No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ NE 21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. OD)$$ ElYes ❑ No ElNA ❑ NE ❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard/ ❑ Waste Analysis' ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code ❑ Rainfall/ ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections/ ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections/ ❑ Sludge Survey/ 22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes [8:] No ❑ NA ❑ NE 23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 18 No ❑ NA ❑ NE Page 2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued Facility Number: 6g Date of Inspection: 69. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 25. Is the facility out of compliance withpermit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 1''4 No ElNA ❑ NE the appropriate box(es) below. al 101 2-4 ❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels ❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance: 26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 1p No ❑ NA ❑ NE 27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [] No ❑ NA ❑ NE Other Issues 28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE and report mortality rates that were higher than noiival? 29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? n Yes y No ❑ NA ❑ NE If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately. 30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes 'l No ❑ NA ❑ NE permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application) 31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No 0 NA ❑ NE ❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other: 32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? 33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? 34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recoil]. Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary). ❑ Yes ❑ Yes ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE No ❑ NA ❑ NE No ❑ NA ❑ NE endations or any other comments. Note' gna1•11.s due (21 jal. 14o1-el iqc,t- pumped tijiiplal oN fletcl IiF- aermvda., 9tetaed For igo miNs. Reviewer/Inspector Name: Kane Font -Mot Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Page 3 of 3 t4194121 IeCol-dreviewed Off6ife Pho„<l19 s90iti Date: 2/4/2015