Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
410008_INSPECTIONS_20171231
Division of Water Quality ❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency Facility Number: 410008 Facility Status: Active Permit: AM410008 ❑ Denied Access Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date: Reason for Visit: Routine County: Guilford Region: W0nStg0-5alem Date of Visit: 03/06/2007 Entry Time:12150 PM Exit Time: 02110 PM Incident #: Farm Name: Keck's Dairy Inc. Owner Email: Owner: Lee Roy Keck Phone: 336-685A664 Mailing Address: 2416 NC 62e JMI*an NC 27283 Physical Address: Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude: 79°37'45" 1-40 east past GSO. NC Hwy 61 south to NC Hwy 62 south/west (turn right). Farm on left. Question Areas: Discharges & Stream Impacts Records and Documents Certified Operator: Lee R Keck Secondary OIC(s): Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application Other issues Operator Certification Number: 21605 On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone On -site representative Lee Roy Keck Phone: 24 hour contact name Lee Roy Keck Phone: Primary Inspector: M I' sa Rosebrock Phone: A A Ct )W. I I L . I �) A Inspector Signature: Date: Secondary Inspector(s): Inspection Summary: 3. Stockpiled waste in pasture near surface water pond must be moved within the week and land applied. Suggest moving feeders to higher ground. Need to re-establish vegetation in this area. 9. Must extend earthen berm another 25 feet to contain potential leachate from covered stockpile. 21. 2006 soil test results are ok. 28. Stockpiled waste from waste pond must remain covered and waste sold or given away within 60 days. After that, it must be land applied per closure plan. 28., 31., & 33. Mr. Keck began close-out procedures prior to obtaining closure plan, integrity of the WSP dam was not compromised. Dam not breached yet. 2/12/07 scrape=2.6 lbs. Nlton 315/07 liquid=4.3 lbs. N11000 gal. Page: 1 Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008 Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population Cattle Cattle - Beef Feeder 16 Cattle -Milk Cow 170 0 Total Design Capacity: 170 Total SSLW: 238,000 Waste Structures Type Identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard Laste Pond WASTE POND 108,00 Page: 2 • 0 Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008 Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine m I .. 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 Yea No NA NE 4. Is storage capacity less than adequate? Cl ■ ❑ ❑ If yes, is waste level into structural freeboard? ❑ 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed (Le.l large trees, severe ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ erosion, seepage, etc.)? 6. Are there structures on -site that are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management ❑ ■ ❑ Cl 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, ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 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 altematives 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: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008 Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason far Visit: Routine Waste Application Yes No NA NE PAN? ❑ Is PAN > 10%110 lbs.? ❑ Total P205? ❑ Failure to incorporate manure/sludge into bare sail? ❑ Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑ Evidence of wind drift? ❑ Application outside of application area? ❑ Crop Type 1 Corn (Silage) Crop Type 2 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Oats) Crop Type 3 I I Fescue (Pasture) Crop Type 4 Crop Type 5 Crop Type 6 Soil Type 1 Soil Type 2 Soil Type 3 Soil Type 4 Soil Type 5 Soil Type 6 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Plan(CAWMP)? 15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Records and Documents Yes No NA NE 19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? 110 ❑ ❑ 20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ If yes, check the appropriate box below. WU P? ❑ Page: 4 Permit: AWC410008 Owner - FaclIIty: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008 Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 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 n u 0 Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008 Inspection Date: 03/06/2007 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine Clthar I*Qija& 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 review/inspection with,on-site representative? 33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ■❑❑❑ Page: 6 Division of Water Quality Facility Number Division of Soil and Water onservation Q Other Agency Type of Visit C mpiiance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance Reason for Visit gRoutine O Complaint O Follow up 0 Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access t r Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: a: County: Region: Farm Name: ��pp1 Snc Owner Email: Owner Name: Lee' leo Phone: Mailing Address: a N L ►L. l a Z 0AAA 19 J Physical Address: �r, l f/ Facility Contact: Lei- ,' "I K aL!' = Title: Phone No: . r Onsite Representative: f (I` Integrator: Certified Operator: eQ Operator Certification Number: Back-up Operator: Location of Farm: s- 46 5f v 5 g a ou tA, SC o �u�tiavl Swine Wean to Finish Wean to Feeder Feeder to Finish Farrow to Wean Farrow to Feeder Farrow to Finish Gilts Other ❑ Other Bach -up Certification Number: Latitude: ®o M Longitude: ° M , 6'� s � ut�) (4 TRf 4 V 4 I) Design Current Design Current Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population ❑ Layer f ❑ Non -Layer Dry Poultry ❑ Layers ❑ Non -Layers ❑ Pullets ❑ Turkeys ❑ urkey Poults ❑ Other Discharges & Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other a. Was the conveyance man-made? b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) Design Current Cattle Capacity Population Dairy Cow oZ- Dair Calf ❑ Dairy Heifer ❑ Dry Cow ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Beef Stocker ❑ Beef Feeder ❑ Beef Brood Cowl c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? Number of Structures: Q 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 )4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes [--]No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE IN Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 12128104 Continued Facilitv Number: — Date of Inspection M Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate'? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE Structure061A Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: NIa5k _ Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): Observed Freeboard (in): 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE (ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes )6No ❑ NA ❑ NE through a waste management or closure plan? If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ 7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE 8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) 9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require yes El [3NA ElNE maintenance or improvement? Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No El NA ❑ NE maintenance/improvement? 11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA [__1 NE ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) ❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or I0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil ❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window J] Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area 12. Crop type(s) 13. Soil type(s) 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No 3 ❑ NA ❑`NE 15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes FR No ❑ NA ❑ NE 16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination?❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 19No ❑ NA ❑ NE 18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): 3. ,ad q` " Z a VV Reviewer/Inspector Name V-Q Phone: —7 XS Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: l ` - 12128104 Continued Fz' Facility Number: — 41te of inspection Required Records & Documents 19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE 20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? if yes, check ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑ Other 21. Do record keeping need impr ement? If yes, chec k he appropriate box b low. El Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE Waste Application' e ly Freeboard Ltif Waste Analysis Soil An is Waste Transfers-Eertifrcati[lt1 t VRainfallVtocking Crop Yield onthly and I" Rain Inspections Weather Code 22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? 26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? 27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? Other issues 28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? 29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? 30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately 31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) 32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? 33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? El Yes No ❑NA ❑NE ❑ Yes ❑ No tg(NA ❑ NE $Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE El Yes ❑ No VNA ❑ NE Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ElNE ❑ Yes tSI,f No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes gNo ❑ NA ❑ NE R1 Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 'Additionali and/or Drawings. IF I�f �, ��r, �i ! �•s� �i: d, 7 12128104 ' V Division of Water Quality ❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency Facility Number: 410008 Facility Status: Active Permit: AWC410008 ❑ Denied Access Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Inactive or Closed Date: Reason for Visit: Rouling I County: Guilford Region: Date of Visit: 08/17/2006 Entry Time:12*55 PM_ Exit Time: 02A5 PM Incident M. Farm Name: Keck's Dairy Inc. Owner: Lee Roy Kech Owner Email: Mailing Address: 2416 NC 62e Julian NC 27283 Physical Address: Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Phone: 33"05:4664 , Location of Farm: Latitude: 35°55'35" Longitude: 79°37'45" 1-40 east past GSO. NC Hwy 61 south to NC Hwy 62 southtwest (turn right). Farm on left. Question Areas: Discharges & Stream Impacts Waste Collection & Treatment Waste Application Records and Documents Other Issues Certified Operator: Lee R Keck Operator Certification Number: 21605 Secondary OIC(s): On -Site RepresentatIve(s): Name Title Phone On -site representative Lee Roy Keck Phone: 24 hour contact name Lee Roy Keck , Phone: Primary Inspector: Me,' a R sebrock f Inspector Signature: ` Secondary Inspector(s): Inspection Summary: 21. 2005 soil test results checked. Are ok, 21. Records look great! 417106 waste analysis= 12.2 lbs. N11000 gal. Phone: Date:4//d "All milk cows are to be moved to Mike Beeson's farm around Sept. 15, 2006. Heifers to stay at Mr. Keck's farm and to be sold off as they are ready to freshen. Page: 1 Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Facility Number: 410008 Reason for Visit: Routine Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population Cattle ❑ Cattle - Dairy Heifer W Cattle - Milk Cow 170 89 Total Design Capacity: 170 Total SSLW: 238,000 Waste Structures Type identifier Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard aate Pond WASTE POND 78.00 Page: 2 Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008 Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 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) ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ G 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? ❑ IN ❑ ❑ 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 Permit: AWC410003 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008 Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 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 manurelsludge into bare soil? ❑ Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑ Evidence of wind drift? ❑ Application outside of application area? ❑ Crop Type 1 Com (Silage) Crop Type 2 Soybeans Crop Type 3 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Oats) Crop Type 4 Crop Type 5 Crop Type 6 Soil Type 1 Soil Type 2 Soil Type 3 Soil Type 4 Soil Type 5 Soil Type 6 14. Do the receiving crops differ From those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Plan(CAWMP)? 15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 18. is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Records and Documents Yes No NA NE 19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ If yes, check the appropriate box below. WUP? ❑ Page: 4 Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number : 410008 Inspection Data: 08/17/2006 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 fall 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: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Inspection Date: 08/17/2006 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Other Issues 31. Did the facility fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? 32. Did Reviewer/lnspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? 33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Facility Number: 410008 Reason for Visit: Routine Yea No NA NE ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Page: 6 Type of Visit Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance Reason for Visit � Routine Q Complaint O Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other ❑ Denied Access 1 Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: 60 LI'lEd Region: WJ R Farm Name: e_(?j4, �� �Q I /- -1 Z �i, Owner Email: Owner Name: Y-, e- Y-- Phone: 33 (- p 6 U Mailing Address: a N C EQ T _Ti !2:n 1 NL, o- -7 a g3 Physical Address: Facility Contact: �LA r'1Q Title: Phone No: Onsite Representative: � L�Integrator: Certified Operator:Operator Certification Number: d Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number: Location of Farm: Latitude: EU-0 ` Longitude: ° �" +-� E ,pas+ VS Design C►urrent Design Current Design Current Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry C►apacity Population Cattle Capacity Population ❑ Wean to Finish 10 Layer Dairy Cow aZ d ❑ Wean to Feeder I IE]Non-Layer I I Dairy Calf ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Daia Heifer ❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry ❑ Dry Cow ❑ Farrow to Feeder ElNon-Dairy ❑ Farrow to Finish El La ers El Stocker ❑ Gilts El Non-Laxers ElBeef Feeder El ❑ Boars El Pullets ❑Beef Brood Cow ❑ Turkeys Other ❑ Other I ❑ Turkey Poults ❑ Other I I umber of Structures: Discharges & Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE Discharge originated at: ElStructure ElApplication Field ElOther a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes *No ❑ NA ❑ NE 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State ❑ Yes *No ElNA ❑ NE other than from a discharge? Page l of 3 12128104 Continued Facility Number: —64K Date of Inspection Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Identifier: oa d Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): Observed Freeboard (in): 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? (ic/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or closure plan? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ElYes fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE Structure 5 Structure 6 ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ 7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes t oElNA [INE 8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yeso [INA El 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�No ❑ NA ❑ NE maintenance/improvement? It. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) ❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil ❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area 12. Crop type(s) 13. Soil type(s) 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? El Yes &No El NA ❑NE 15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes VkNo El NA ❑ NE 16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes ❑ No Ld, NA El NE 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes XN T❑`NA ElNE 18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ElYes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other -comments. Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): AL Reviewer/Inspecto Name- I Phone: S Reviewer/inspector Signatur Date: Page 2 of 3 V V [, - - - ' V I -- 12128104 Continued (C. Facility Number: — loate of Inspection Required Records & Documents 19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes (No ❑ NA ❑ NE 20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE the appropriate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps ❑Other 21. Do s record keeping need imp vement? .a�eP-i ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE Waste Appli lion Wee y Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil A lysis Q Wnst B ainfall �p Stocking Crop Yield cftons Monthly and 1 " Rain Inspections �Za'ther'C'o'de 22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?�� 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? wet 25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? 26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? 27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? Other Issues 28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? 29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? 30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately 31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) 32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? 33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No )NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No WNA ❑ NE ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ANA ❑ NE ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE ElYes fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes *o ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes O ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE Additional Comments and/or Drawings: a I a o0.Yy- aao(6 Sb i I +es+ 14s ? aoog- c� . Page 3 of 3 12128104 Division of Water Quality ❑ Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency Facility Number; 410008 Facility Status: Active Permit. AWC410008 ❑ Denied Access Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection _ Inactive or Closed Date: Reason for Visit: Routine _ County: Guilford Region: Date of Visit: 05/20/2QQ; . Entry Time: 01:15 PM Exit Time: 02:45 PM Incident #: Farm Name: Keck's 12ai[y Inc. Owner Email: Owner: Lee Roy Keck Phone: 336-685-4664 Mailing Address: 2416 NC 620 Julian NC 27283 Physical Address: Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant Integrator: Location of Farm: Latitude: 35"55'35" Longitude: 7993745" 1-40 east past GSO. NC Hwy 61 south to NC Hwy 62 south/west {turn right). Farm on left. Question Areas: (� Discharges & Stream Impacts 0 Waste Collection & Treatment ® Waste Application Records and Documents 0 Other Issues Certified Operator: Lee R Keck Operator Certification Number: 21605 Secondary OIC(s): On -Site Representative(s): Name Title Phone On -site representative Lee Roy Keck Phone: 24 hour contact name Lee Roy Keck Phone: Primary Inspector: Me sa M Rosebrock Phone: 336-771-4600 Ext.383 Inspector Signature: Date: Secondary Inspector(s): Phone: Phone: Inspection Summary: 21. Went over the new permit requirements with Mr. Keck. 21, 2004 soil test results are ok. 28. Mr. Keck has a verbal lease agreement to apply waste on 10 acres next to T-9047 F-4 (owned by Mr. Keck). Approximately 2-3 tons of dry bedding waste is applied per month. Need to record applications and make mention of this land in the WUP, including allowable PAN, acreage, and crops. 4/13/05 Waste analysis: 7.9 lbs. N/1000 gal. Page: 1 • 0 C Permit: AWC410006 Owner- Facility: Lee Roy Keck Inspection Date: 05/20/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Facility Number: 410008 Reason for Visit: Routine Regulated Operations Design Capacity Current Population Cattle Cattle - Milk Cow 170 139 Total Design Capacity: 170 Total SSLW: 238,000 Waste Structures Type IdentlHer Closed Date Start Date Designed Freeboard Observed Freeboard Waste Pond WASTE POND 48.00 Page: 2 • Permit. AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008 Inspection Date. 05/20/2005 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? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Discharge originated at: Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other ❑ a. Was conveyance man-made? ❑ 0130 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? ❑ YPc ❑ ❑ No NA NF Waste C allentinn ,Stgrage & Treatment 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 ❑ M ❑ ❑ 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 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 ❑ M ❑ ❑ improvement? Yas Nn NA NE WaGte A lip allo_n 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)? ❑ PAN? ❑ Is PAN > 10%/10 tbs.? ❑ Total P205? ❑ Failure to incorporate manure/sludge Into bare soil? ❑ Outside of acceptable crop window? ❑ Evidence of wind drift? ❑ Application outside of application area? ❑ Crop Type 1 Com (Silage) Crop Type 2 Fescue (Hay) Crop Type 3 Small Grain (Wheal, Barley, Oats) Crop Type 4 Crop Type 5 Page: 3 • . Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number: 410008 Inspection Date: 05120=05 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine 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)? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ IS. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ M ❑ ❑ 16, Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes 0 ❑ ❑ No NA NE Remrds and ❑ornm ±nic 19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage and Permit readily available? ❑ ❑ ❑ 20. Does the facility fall to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? ❑ ❑ ❑ If yes, check the appropriate box below. WUP? ❑ 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)? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ ❑ E ❑ 25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ E ❑ ❑ 26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorous loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Page: 4 Permit: AWC410008 Owner - Facility: Lee Roy Keck Facility Number, 410008 Inspection Date: 05/20/2005 Inspection Type: Compliance Inspection Reason for Visit: Routine Other Issues Yes No NA NE 28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the Permit or CAWMP? N ❑ ❑ ❑ 29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report those mortality ❑ M ❑ ❑ 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. 31. Did the facility fall to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by Permit? ❑ ❑ ❑ 32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 00 ❑ ❑ Page: 5 Type of Visit 9N,ompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance Reason for Visit? (uoutine Q Complaint O Follow up O Referral Q Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access Date of Visit: old rrival'['Ime: Departure'rime: County: Region: Farm Name: �� ± V. h, r Owner Name: u ]Dh � - l Owner Email: a/ Phone: __ —� l L-' Mailing Address: °t I f �" �a ;,� �o U 1 %t_� � cs2 :2 Or Physical Address: Facility Contact: Title: Phone No: Onsite Representative: L Q� Integrator: Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: 1 ! S Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number: Location of Farm: Latitude: ET Longitude: Mo In, U- V W t45+ Pa sf b. C- y S oL*h 4t M C, StL)y 6 a s/w Swine Wean to Finish Wean to Feeder Feeder to Finish Farrow to Wean Farrow to Feeder Farrow to Finish Gilts Boars Other ❑ Other -- Design Current Design Current Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population I 10 Layer ❑ Non -Layer Dry Poultry ❑ Layers ❑ Non -Layers ❑ Pullets ❑ Turkeys ❑ Turkey Poults ❑ Other Discharges & Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other a. Was the conveyance man-made? b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) Design Current Cattle Capacity Population Dairy Cow 0 a0 Dairy Calf ❑ Dairy Heifei ❑ Dry Cow ❑ Non-Dai ❑ Beef Stocker ❑ Beef Feeder ❑ Beef Brood Cow c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? Number of Structures: EDI d. Does discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWQ) 2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE []Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE 12128104 Continued Facility Number: — 0 Date of Inspection lTT • Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes /❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE � tructure l� ructure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: G1 Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): Observed Freeboard (in): 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE (ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE through a waste management or closure plan? If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ 7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No []NA ❑ NE 8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE (Not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks and/or wet stacks) 4. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes i No ❑ NA ❑ NE maintenance or improvement? Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes KNo ElNA ElNE maintenance/improvement?*No 11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. El Yes ❑ NA ElNE ElExcessive Ponding ElHydraulic Overload ElFrozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) ❑ PAN ❑ PAN > t0% or 10 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil ❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl El Application Outside of Area 12. Crop type(s) �r� t r�0 5 ( 613 A 1 13. Soil type(s) 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ElNA [INE 15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No & ❑ NA ❑ NE 16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination! El Yes ❑ No XNA ❑ NE 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes XN o ❑ NA ❑ NE 18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No VNA ❑ NE Reviewer/Inspector Name ! e,p' c.ile 1 Y Phone: Reviewer/inspector Signatu Date: �p Q 12/28/04 8�C ! Con�nu_ed� Facility Number: — , 110of Inspection a _ . Required Records & Documents 19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes N(No ❑ NA ❑ NE 20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes No ElNA ElNE the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ElChecklists ❑ Design ❑Maps ❑Other 21. Does ecord keeping nee7'rovement? If yes, chec the appropriate box Clow. XYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE aste Applica n eekly Freeboard �aste Analysis L1�Soil Analysis Rainfall Stocking ❑ Crop Yield Xmonthly and 1" Rain Inspections IPA' Weather Code 22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? 0 (0 26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? 27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? Other Issues 2$. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? 29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document and report the mortality rates that were higher than normal? 30. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately 31. Did the facility fail to notify the regional office of emergency situations as required by General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) 32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? 33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ko ElNA ❑ NE ElYes ❑No )d NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes [XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑Yes ❑No14NA [I NE ❑ Yes )6No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes [:]No 1XNA ❑ NE Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE El Yes lNo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes K. ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE ElYes ❑No ❑ NA ❑ NE e i I I I I Draw!ng •. I� i •I .� J ,� .' r , i r ! . • �/ 4113 Jos = 7 . 9 1 J95 . N �1600 Facility Number 41 08 Date of Visit: t11912004 'rime: 0940 O Not O erational . O Below Threshold ® Permitted ® Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......................... ... County: S.xullfA7 d ............................... Farm Name: 1�c�l�a.I}airY.hs,..................................................................................... ...,........ W5RA........ OwnerName:L99-RaY................................. KC& ............................................................ Phone No: 33.6-6,85:466.4 ........................................................... MailingAddress: UNMAN .........................................................................................Julian ... NC.............................................................. VIM .............. Facility Contact: WrAu.1.S.eels................................................Title:................................................................ Phone No: G..4S1�15Q........................ Onsite Representative: LexRoy..M&............................................................................ integrator: .............. Certified Operator., LmR ...................................... Kvs;k .................................................. Operator Certification Number: Z1.6Q,5............................. Location of Farm: -40 east past GSO. NC Hwy 61 south to NC Hwy 62 south/west (turn right). Farm on left. + ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude F 35 • 55 35 Longitude 79 • 37 45 Design Current Design Current Design Current Swine Capacity Population Poultry CaDacitv Po ulation Cattle Capacity.Population ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy 200 161 ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other ❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity 200 ❑ Gilts Total Skw 2801aoo ❑ Boars Number of Lagoons Y�nlrlmn Pnndc 1 4ZMirl Tranc 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 ® No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ®No Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: ......Was:te.Fond..................................................................................................................................................................................... Freeboard (inches): 90 12112103 Continued Facility Number: 41-08 • Date of Inspection l]/9/2004 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes ® No closure plan? (If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) 7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes IN No 8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No 9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes ® No elevation markings? Waste Anplication 10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes ® No 11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc > 3000 12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, 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 19 No Odor Issues 17. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below ❑ Yes ❑ No liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? 18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes ® No 19. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes ®No roads, building structure, and/or public property) 20, At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes ® No Air Quality representative immediately. q ) i. y • Y necesd • or, any other'c'omments.' Comments (refer to uestion # Ex fain an YES answers and/or sn recommendations Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as " ry) Meld Copy ® Final Notes JJ .al.�.. .,:;ice E •,:r I., :� i 3. Creeks going through the pastures look ok today. 15. Soil sample #005 reports zinc=3140. Need to re -sample. If still>3000 this field must be removed from CAWMP. Contact SWCD/NRCS for assistance. 3. Went over new permit requirements with Mr. Keck, 110/26/04 Waste analysis=4.4 lbs. N/1000 gal. Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Me 'ssa �Rosebrock! r;y 6 i4s ,I,L-•el, l I j �I �.i ,u��: Reviewer/Inspector Signatu Date: Q C. V 111 L/!"U Facility Number: 41-08 Dof Inspection I1/9/2004 • Required Records & Documents 21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? 22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? (ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) 23. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Waste Application ❑ Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Sampling 24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? 25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? 26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) 27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? 28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? NPDES Permitted Facilities 30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) 31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? 34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? 35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall []inspection After V Rain ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ®No ❑ Yes ®No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ®No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes IN No ❑ Yes ®No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No 12112103 Type of Visit ��Cfompliance Inspection O Operation Review O lagoon Evaluation Reason for Visit 4D Routine O Complaint O Follow up p Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access Facility Number Date of Visit: 4 Tirne: �Permltted O Not O erational O Below ❑ Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated 9T Abovve reshold: ............»..».... . Farm Name: � .__� TV) C ___•_ County: Owner Name:...... _J .2� K0 _..b�. G..._.»..........».»....»................... ' Phone No: _. .s �P.L.!Q��A.. 74?.4? Y. ?Mailing Address:».w^sJ Facility Contact: Title: ..... Phone No:»�.1.�SS"b Onsite Representative:. .�,�„� _ ._ _ ...____ .. Integrator. Certified Operator:... Lee_ .............................. Operator Certification Number:.,,, �11...L oz_.... Location of Farm: Arm 0. nn la .,. ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude �Dcsign °, Current, a IG Deszgn �„ 5 Current E , Swine - .. .iC_a�se,w.-.P.►rnil3fren .a�`POultry,..? , ..._;aC9nacitv�.Pn�i9$ot Longitude ' ®4 I 'tom I'u Wean to Feeder ❑Layer Dairy O O 11 Feeder to Finish i:g= ❑Non -Layer Non -Dairy 11 Farrow to Wean Farrow Feeder Other to t 7 Farrow to Finish TvtBl D Capacr<ty ti oZ� x i r , !M , Gilts Boars z�1�; :; .'.:Total'SSLW ` D Gb0 4. :... r U ALM Discharges & Stream I- mpacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes PNo 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 gallmin? 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 �ro 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yeso Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes XNo Structure Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure S Structure 6 Identifier:........ ».». _»._...._ .._ ._.»»..»__.».... ._.. _ _ ...».».»... ..... »» _ » .»»».».. ...._ ..__ ......... Freeboard (inci)os): 12112103 ��� CondnUed Facility Number: — Date of inspection 5: Are there any immediate threats to the Itrilty of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tresevere erosion, seepage, etc.) ❑ Yes No X I 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or ❑ Yes No closure plan? (If any of questions 4-6 was answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) 7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes k,o �J�!"``Wo 8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenan�mprovement? ❑ Yes 9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level ❑ Yes "RNo elevation markings? Waste Application 10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes No 11. Is there evidence of over application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ONo ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Copper and/or Zinc w 12. Crop type A e&j�2 13. Do the receiving crops diffe 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 XNo Odor Issues 17. 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? 18. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? ❑ Yes *o 19. 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) 20. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional ❑ Yes )d No Air Quality representative immediately. °'i�F9Yffi;?4�ftc-- ' z€oi"!lTL,�17jlE6iND 3dS?'..� zb8a{. wG�•""45717P'31'i'i51�t&-,�baP �11ll�tlriilEri4:&F4d1'y£ie%5i9i`°4°'�'s'.ii...?�':dii:NI1sV41i�;1;���`,6`i�i "S�i ttY!`i1- �Y.7: } .tia,,:'.fi€Rat�}P°E'TfC ;�7'.*.�ilS�i� a ;? x§ a9s•yE�� c� {E�I.i c Cow (i[�ei'e�r�to gneSbost #) 'tMp"' am ' YFSsaaswers's l'or any oY, ather�taomments: ; s s A 3 � •�ac� � e.�a�;.a >af �-aey. u �._.�:,,xSeW:'uuw.:.a..3.iu+.u� � ' -.t�S ( S��17FA ? 3Use� draws af�facility to�lietter �cplaiun.situationde. (�addltionai pagis as neoes�ry): Reid Copy ❑Final Notes � '' U -Dail roon�QXO re_'C'0r'5 p - L 1 o naL� c.k-, uDa�Sfe_ p o rd Q -%.� l `' r� i n Ii" c� g Reviewer/Inspechor Names i' x ->'M J Reviewer/inspector Signature. Date: 117n17m2 !'natis.u.A Facility Number: _ D of Inspection Re ttuired Records & Documents 21. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? 22. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? (ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) 23. D record keeping need ' provement? If es, check the appro ate box below. Waste Application Freeboard Waste Analysis Soil Sampling 24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? 25. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? 26. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) 27. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? 28. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? 29. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWN?? NPDES Permitted Facilities 30. Is the facility covered under a NPDES Permit? (If no, skip questions 31-35) 31. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 32. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 33. Did the facility fail to conduct an annual sludge survey? 34. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment? 35. Does record keeping for NPDES required forms need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Stocking Form ❑ Crop Yield Form ❑ Rainfall ❑ Inspection After 1" Rain ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Annual Certification Form ❑ Yes ))(No ❑ Yes �o ❑Yes r ❑ Yes No ❑ Yes No ❑ Yes VNo o ❑ Yes ❑ Yes No ❑ Yes No ❑ Yes �No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No [:]Yes [--]No ❑ Yes ❑ No 10 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. I b /,2(a 04 .ste Ar�lySi s = `�- b- I �3s . N�(ooa�, 5s131�o� � Cos jj&'to Z'01 rN :3 GO resa-uu,p�2 . � �' s4� I >3000 41 s os-i- be 12112103 i echnical Assistance Site Visit Repo • D on of Soil and Water ConservatioAl O Natural Resources Conservation Service O Soil and Water Conservation District O Other... Facility Number 41 - ® Date: 127104 Time: 1 11:10 1 Time On Farm: 80 WSRO Farm Name Keck's Dairy Inc. County Guilford Phone: 336-685-4664 Mailing Address 2416 NC 62E Julian NC 27283 Onsite Representative Leroy Keck Integrator Type Of Visit Purpose 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 O Response to DWQ/DENR referral Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral O Response to complaint/local referral O Requested by producer/integrator O Follow-up O Emergency O Other... Design Current Design Current Capacity Population Canacity Population ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Feeder to Finish , ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑ Boars ❑ Layer ❑ Non -Layer ® Dairy zoo "I ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Other GENERAL UESTIONS: 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 Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Identifier WSP Level (Inches) 44 CROP TYPES lCom, Silage I ISmall grain silage I IFescue-graze lRye grass (graze) SPRAYFIELD SOIL TYPES ApB CeB2 CcB En C VaB 7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section) 03/10/03 ❑ Layer ❑ Non -Layer ® Dairy zoo "I ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Other GENERAL UESTIONS: 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 Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Identifier WSP Level (Inches) 44 CROP TYPES lCom, Silage I ISmall grain silage I IFescue-graze lRye grass (graze) SPRAYFIELD SOIL TYPES ApB CeB2 CcB En C VaB 7. What type of technical assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in comment section) 03/10/03 Facility Number 41 - 8 Date: 4/27/04 PARAMETER © No assistance provided/requested ❑ 8. Waste spill leaving site TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed Provided ❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site El 10. Level in structural freeboard 5. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment 2 ❑ ❑ [111. 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) ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs. ❑ ElEl15. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs. 30.2Fi.0200 re -certification [116. Hydraulic overloading 31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (POA) ❑ ❑ 32. Irrigation record keeping assistance ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records [118. Late/missing waste analysis 33.Organ izelcomputerization of records ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records 34. Sludge Evaluation ❑ ❑ [120. Late/missing soils analysis ❑ 21. Crop needs improvement 35. Sludge or Closure Plan ❑ ❑ ❑ 22. Crop inconsistent with waste plan 36. Sludge removallclosure 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 ❑ ❑ Reaulatory Referrals 41. Site evaluation ❑ ❑ ❑ Referred to DWQ Date: 42. Irrigation Calibration ❑ ❑ ❑ Referred to NCDA Date: 43. El El ❑ Other... Irrigation system designlinstallation Date: 44. Secure irrigation information (maps, etc.) ❑ ❑ LIST IMPROVEMENTS 45.Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.) ❑ ❑ MADE BY OPERATION 46. Wettable Acre Determination ❑ ❑ 1 47. Evaluate WAD certificationlrechecks ❑ ❑ 48. Crop evaluation/recommendations ❑ ❑ 2. 49. Drainage work/evaluation ❑ ❑ 50. Land shaping, subsoiling, 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. ' 66. Operation & maintenance education ❑ ❑ 67. Record keeping education ❑ ❑ 6. 58. Croplforage management education ❑ ❑ 59. Soil and/or waste sampling education ❑ ❑ 03/10/03 Facility Number 41 - ® Date: 4127104 COMMENTS: Waste analysis: 3-24-04 LSD 7.3 Ibs.N11000 gals. B, 10-17-03 LSD 5.8 Ibs.N11000 gals. B The last soil sample was dated 4-6-04 There was no waste applied in the Fall, according to Mr. Keck. The last waste application in 2003 was gig ust. The Spring 2004 records look good. Good farm. Mr. Keck elected not to add the field, that waste was applied to in August 2003, to the waste plan cause he doesn't plan to apply waste to this field again. TECHNICAL SPECIALIST IRocky Durham Millie Langley SIGNATURE Date Entered: 4/30/04 Entered By: lRocky Durham 3 03/10/03 (Type of Visit 0 Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation Reason for Visit 0 Routine O Complaint Q Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access Facility Number 41 Og I)atc nt' Visit: U9/D5/2003 Time: 1054 Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold Permitted ■ Certified 0 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated.or Above Threshold: ........ Farm Name: Kc&'.s.JDail'J:. m.................................................................. County: Gutilford................................. W, i.Q...... Owner Name: I.Roy_.-.------------------------------------- ---- Phone No: 3�Ct-b$5:3h44---------------------- - ----- MailingAddress:.......................................................................................... MiAiI............................................................... 27283 .............. Facility Contact: Dete..RoxKmk............. ..:.................... Title: Phone No: Onsite Representative: $Qi Ket'Jc----::---:-------------------------- Integrator: -------------------------------------------. Certified Operator: Lm.&.................................:.: Klee.....:............................................ Operator Certification Number. 21605............................. Location of Farm: 2 1/2 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. + ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • SS 3S Longitude F 45 Design Current Design Current Design Current ine @a acit Po ulation Poultry Ca aci Po ulation Cattle Ca aci Po u❑Wean to Feeder ❑ Layer ®Dairy 200 116 ❑Feeder to Finish ❑ Non-Layer[!.�nm Farrow to Wean Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑ Boars ❑Other TOtAI Design C►apacity 200 Total SIS 280,000 ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area Number of LagoonsHaps Holding Ponds /Solid �1 ❑ 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 ® No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6- Identifier:....13mtr.2sutd,..... ........................... .......................... ........................... ........................... ........................... Freeboard (inches): 30 05/03101 �p�/ /� �� Continued . Facility Number: 41-08 __... • Date. of Inspection 09/05/2003 • 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 prciperiy 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 IN No 9. Do any stuctures 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 It. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No 12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, 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 pendW 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 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? IN Yes ❑ No 113 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. Comments refer to question iFI. Ex lain any YFS answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. Use drawings of facility to better exonsituseinaniti0l"PIJP.BgEMRReces—sur-YA-M ❑Field Copy ® Final Notes 19. July 2003 Waste analyses: 3.6 lbs. N/1000. 2003 soil analysis resits ok. 25. Application of waste on 8/12/03 (t9 loads) was on land not in the CAWMP yet. Technical specialist is adding field to CAWMP now. Reviewer/Inspector Name MMelissa Rose ck Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: 05103101 1 1 1 Continued V Facii0ty Number: 41-08 I01' Inspection 09/05/2003 . t dor 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 Iand application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes ❑ No 30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No E 05103101 f0:304M Type of Visit NCompliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Lagoon Evaluation Reason for Visit JoRoutine 0 Complaint O Follow up 0 Emergency Notification Q Other Facility Number Date of Visit: *Permitted 0 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified [3Registered Farm Name: Ker-,L5 hat r q �i C Owner Name: Mailing Address: �` jr 4 1 ((02 C&zz n U Facility Contact: [ �� L 2t,4 City Onsite Representative: Certified Operator: Location of Farm: Time:-�+-�.�-� ❑ Oenied Access Date Last Operate or Abov hres old: County: Phone No: ,,,,3 a4 • / i a n oaZ go Phone No: Integrator: Operator Certification Number: 01O5- ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry x Cattle ❑ Morse Latitude Longitude ICJ « Design Current Design Current Design Current Swine Capacity Population Poultry. Capacitv Population Cattle : Capacity Population ❑ Wean to Feeder 113 Layer I I JjZDairy ❑ Feeder to Finish ILI Non -Layer I ILI Non-Dai ❑ Farrow to Wean El Farrow to Feeder ❑Other ❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity ZO 0 ❑Gilts ❑ Boars Total SSLW Number of a`goot%s ` ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ S ra Fietd Area Holden ,�• g Ponds I Solid.Ttaps� -- ❑ 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 ElSpray 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? El Yes o Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes XNo `- �Struc tre l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure G Identifier: 1►v Freeboard (inches): 05103101 Continued • Facility Number: — Date of Inspection Iy/CL31 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes KNO 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 No 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 Ai31211cation 10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes o 11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No 12. Crop type 1 Qra t n t 0—o rn 13. Do the receiving crops differ with fluse designated to 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 ANo Required Records & Documents 17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ❑ Yes KNo 18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the ertified Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? INUP, design. ❑ Yes *o (W checklists, maps, etc.) +~V 19. Does record keeping need improvement? (I eeboard, waste analysis & sesample 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 D�VQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit? (iel discharge. freeboard problems. over application) Yes No 23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes *0 24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ YesNo 25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?{Yes /❑ No ES 0 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. will receive no further correspondence about this visit' �Ylou 1 i. F'�,�. '�:-� an Y1 Ti.7ta��i�'r��anlL ax:`•.3L.i,ut..i!-y F:«S f'Y(°dtyn �w`"a•"'c' ki{u�F�`�r�yj � �i 4I I mments(refer to'gneslton.. Ezplahhii: y lli{t� D^� YSi+df? fL. `O. ff or, ny mommen ons or a (1 , w e,commen Lse drawangs of facllit} to better explain sitnattans f nse addittonni pages as necessary) rE KE Field Co ❑ Final Notes j%Y s°m. L It U,M&e, /4n a.1 � Ses : 3. R I bs &-)a yses & . Reviewer/Inspector Name �� ; ; ; ' :.' i ` a `l ��; ,.' w�a w Reviewerlinspector Signature Date: 05103101 / + L r Continued Facility Number: Date of Inspection Odnr Issues 26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge atlor below liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? 27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? 28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, roads, building structure, and/or public property) 29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ' B N'er G.?+e ❑ Yes fNo oYes ❑ Yes kNo o ❑ Yes t3rr u Additional Comments sndlor. Drawings: = O�A' ,/x 2- �O 05103101 1 T chnical Assistance Site Visit Repo 40 Di n of Soil and Water Conservation MF p Natural Resources Conservation Service O Soil and Water Conservation District O Other... Facility Number 41 - ® Date: I17/03 Time: 1 9:45 j Time On Farm: 75 WSRO Farm Name Keck's Dairy Inc. County Guilford Phone: Mailing Address 2416 NC 62E Julian NC Onsite Representative Lee Roy Keck Integrator Tyye Of Visit Purpose Of Visit Compliance Inspection (pilot only) Technical Assistance Confirmation for Removal ❑ No Animals -Date Last Operated: [3 Operating Operating below threshold ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Design Current Capacity Population ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑ Boars p Routine O Response to DWQ/DENR referral Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral Q Response to complaint/local referral p Requested by producer/integrator Q Follow-up 0 Emergency O Other... Design Current Capacity Population ❑ Layer ❑ Non -Layer 0 Dairy 2a0 159 ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Other 910-685-4664 27283 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 p Routine O Response to DWQ/DENR referral Q Response to DSWC/SWCD referral Q Response to complaint/local referral p Requested by producer/integrator Q Follow-up 0 Emergency O Other... Design Current Capacity Population ❑ Layer ❑ Non -Layer 0 Dairy 2a0 159 ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Other 910-685-4664 27283 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 0 Dairy 2a0 159 ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Other 910-685-4664 27283 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? 6• 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 Structurel Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Identifler WSP Level (Inches) 36 CROP TYPES lCorn, Silage Ismall grain Fescue -graze Rye grass (Graze) SPRAYFIELD SOIL TYPES ApB CeB2 CcB VaB 7. What type of technical' assistance does the onsite representative feel is needed? (list in -comment section) 03/10/03 a C I 41 - 8 Date: 4/17/03 FFsollil.yber ER 0 No assistance provided/requested ste spill leaving site TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Needed Provided ❑ 9. Waste spill contained on site 26. Waste Plan Revision or Amendment ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Level in structural freeboard 26. Waste Plan Conditional Amendment ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Level in storm storage 27. Review or Evaluate Waste Plan w/producer, ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Waste structure integrity compromised 28. Forms Need (list In comment section) ❑ 13. Waste structure needs maintenance 29. Missing Components (list in comments) ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Over application >= 10% & 10 lbs. ❑ ❑ [315. Over application < 10% or < 10 lbs. 30.21-1.0200 re -certification [116. Hydraulic overloading 31. Five & Thirty day Plans of Action (PoA) ❑ ❑ 32. Irrigation record keeping assistance ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Deficient irrigation records ❑ 18. Late/missing waste analysis 33. Organ I ze/com puterizatl on of records ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Late/missing lagoon level records 34. Sludge Evaluation ❑ ❑ ❑ 20. Late/missing soils analysis ❑ 21. Crop needs improvement 36. 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. Irrigation Calibration ❑ ❑ ❑ Referred to NCDA Date: Other... ❑ 43. irrigation system desigMnstallation El❑ Date: 44. Secure Irrigation Information (maps, etc.) ❑ ❑ LIST IMPROVEMENTS 45. Operating improvements (pull signs, etc.) ❑ ❑ MADE BY OPERATION 11. 46. Wettable Acre Determination ❑ ❑ 47. Evaluate WAD certification/rechecks ❑ ❑ 48. Crop evaluation/recommendations ❑ ❑ 2. 49. Drainage work/evaluation ❑ ❑ 50. Land shaping, subsoiling, 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 ❑ ❑ S 58. Cropfforage management education ❑ ❑ 59. Soil and/or waste sampling education ❑ ❑ 03/10/03 • • Facility Number 41 - ® Date: 4/17/03 COMMENTS: Waste analysis: 4-04-03 ALD 4.7 Ibs.N/1000 gals. B, 8.1 Ibs.N/1000 gals. S.I. 9-24-02 LSD 10.1 Soil Test dated 3-28-03 Provided Mr. Keck with some freeboard forms. Fv- TECHNICAL SPECIALIST lRocky Durham Millie Langley SIGNATURE Date Entered: /21/03 Entered By: IRocky Durham 03/10/03 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 Date of Visit: 1U/10/20t12 '1'iuic: 1300 Facility Number 41 S Q Not Operational Q Below Threshold e Permitted a Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:: ............... Farm Name: Kt;rk:S.I?airy.ttxr...................................... :.................................................... County: G.ug(Qr.d ........................................... !'.[BRO........ OwnerName: LCA.RQY.................................. KCFk............................................................. Phone No: 33.6,-,6A5.!.46A4 ........................................................... MailingAddress: Z.416ACRE.........................................................................................blin.Ac .............................................................. 2.72A.3 ............. FacilityContact: U.C. li.QY..T enk................................................ Title:................................................................ Phone No:................................................... Onsite Representative: LCC.RQy.,Kggk................... ... Integrator* ....................................................................... Certified Operator:l~t~g.R...................................... Keck .................................................. Operator Certification Num be r: Z16Q$ ............................. Location of Farm: 112 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. + ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 55 f 35 ♦f Longitude 79 • 37 C 45 « 4. )+ Des n� Current �.��• rrReA Desi� :Current } F Dent n�� " f urrent; '� ,,� .� gn gElio! Swine wL Ca acit l?o ulahon Poultry Ca acrt ulatiion ' ;Cat�'.a ;� Ca act -Population s � : b ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑Layer ® Dairy 200 158 r ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑Nan -Layer ; ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑Other _ 1 "�� ^; _tKkg' ❑ Farrow to Feeder q , al Design Capagt 200 ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts Fa . ` lip WW o:� s 280,000 ❑ Boars r4 , .. or �Yy �Af. Number of Lagoons ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area a , , Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I� ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System .. Discharges C& Strgam ImpagIN 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. li'discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No c, If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No 2, Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ❑ No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: ......Waste.Ptaud...................................................................................................................................................................................... Freeboard (inches): 54 05103101 rJo't q a Continued Facility Number: 41-8 Date of Inspection 10/10/2002 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 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 ADnlication ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes IN No ❑ Yes ® No 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 Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, 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 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? (iel 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 IN 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 No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. o en ts efe to stfon #}: Explain any Sans ers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. U drawings of faci i to better explain situations. additional pages as necessary : ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes Operation and records look great! Keep up the good work! 19. 2002 soil samples have been taken and sent to tab in Raleigh. Are awaiting results. 9/24/02 Waste analysis= 10. 1 lbs. N/1000 gal. Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Melis osebrock Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: a--� 05103101 Continued Facility Number: 41-8 1). Inspection 10/10/2002 Odrrr Issues 26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? 27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? 28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, roads, building structure, and/or public property) 29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ No J 05103101 PM 4iui�Jo O (?they Agency `Vit, WW 0 Q "I 1�, 4,; "U.i ,AMJ lo, 7x "I'le 2 P;3I3.��ir Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review '0 Lagoon Evaluation Reason for Visit X Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Emergency Notification 0 Other El Denied Access Facility Number jslate ol,visit: E �6'ime: Not Operational Below Threshold PermittedDate Last OperaVt or Me Th shold- Perm ted Certified E3Conditionally Certified z County: Farm Name: 1Ze C_Ks ai ry Th c - U j Owner Name: Pou- L&c K�! Phone No: 33 6, /v ?S-. 17161-� Mailing Address: — 9 q &- N C &62 Facility Contact: - byle- Title: Phone No: Onsite Representativel. Integrator, Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: Location of Farm: U��_s [;_�, 0 6 "66 &W 17 �OK .4— P vl+. --F1'),nA An r1jel-4. 'T, ) , ; 0 n /kz El Swine 0 Poultry 9 Cattle 0 Horse LatitudV Longitude Ev 'Desigh Current ..,Designs .,Current -Design' . p . sign 'Current' !"Capacitv I.Oopullaiion tToultry Capickv-1populati6n,"I 'Cattle.;q" .... .. .1. , 1. Cabacitv.., onu ation . ry EJ Wean to Feeder 10 Layer Da' ❑ Feeder to Finish 10 Non -Layer 10 Non-DailprL I El Farrow to Wean ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑Other .El Farrow to Finish Total Design',C`fa'parity''c;260 L.J 0 Gilts wl Boars S tiaal Number of"Lai6ons Subsurface Drains Preseiit:110 Lagoon Are; 10 Sprav Field Area 11;(;� n on dls�/,S�hdTraps di=No Liquid Waste Management System ., R.; Discharges &Streani ImRacts 1, Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes No Discharge originated at: [3 Lagoon [] Spray Field E] Other a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? [3 Yes [I No b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) El Yes El 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) El Yes [3 No 2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? 0 Yes %No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? 0 Yes Waste CollectiQn & Treatment KNO 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? El Spillway El Yes �No true I all Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: Freeboard (inches): 05103101 keC4 Continued Facility Number: Ell— • Date of Inspection 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? El 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 o 8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ElYes 4NO 9. Do any stuctures 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? A Excessive Pondin� ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No 12. Crop type 13. Do the receiving crops differ wit those designat d 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? Rectun'ed Records & Documents 17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit or other Permit readily available? ti 18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the iC.ertifed Animal Waste Managemen Plan readily available? (ie/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) \jf ✓/ 19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ielg 4a, a oard, 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 pro�lems, 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. VYere any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes �No ❑ Yes ' No ❑ Yes JNo o ElYeso ElYes ❑ Yes ke'No ❑ Yes 3No ❑ Yes *10 ❑ Yes XNo ❑ Yes o ❑ Yes 3�o ❑ Yes KNo [I Yes No ElYes A No ❑ Yes WNo No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. Comments (refer to -question #) ,� Explain "yAS answers undlar`;any r'ec6mmendations or aoy,other coutmeiits; eai f f VI LiceF`drawings of fA0ity to'bRter ex` pWh sit lotions. (use ddltionat�'pages ss necessgry) 1 ° Field Conv Final Notes 7 `"`J'�" 3 .1 S' ,H r' . 4 � s-: ter' _� a' _•r�,�-4t 3.>€.. ._ rr..._..�, r tr,-� 3.� Reviewer/InspectorName Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 05103101 r LContinued 1 4 Facility number: -- bate of Ins/►action dor Issues 26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? 27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? 28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, roads, building structure, and/or public property) 29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters.. etc.) 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? Additional Comments and/or Drawings N//000 �p C9 000--47(� "-� jlq-w eA'k61'-) V- (T =�. ❑ Yes XNo ❑ Yes XNo ❑ Yes ONO ❑ Yeso 05103101 Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access Facility Number Q1 13 Date of Visit: 4/16/2002 Time: 14:30 Not operational Q Below Threshold Permitted M Certified (] Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......................... FarmName: Keck'S.DairJ'Anc........................................... ............................................... County:(;.99fQjr.d ........................................... W.SRQ........ OwnerName: LmRax.................................. Re.ek ............................................................ Phone No: 91Q-fi#S-.4f154................................... MailingAddress: NONCOM ......................................................................................... JI)IJiRK..C.............................................................. 2.72,13 ............. FacilityContact:.............................................................................. Title:.............................................. Phone No. Onsite Representative: Lce.Roy..Kark............................................................................. Integrator:...................... .... ................ Certified Operator: Lft.R...................................... Keck................................. .... Operator Certification Number:ZjftQS ............. ............................. Location of Farm: Z 112 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. + ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horee Latitude 35 ' S5 ' 35 66 Longitude 79 • 37 4 45 i. D-ischarges & 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) 0-Yes. ❑ No c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ® Yes ❑ No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No Waste Collection && Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Freeboard (inches): 48 05103101 Continued Facility Number: 41-8 Date of Inspection F4—/1-6/-2002-1 0 5. Are there any immediate threats to the AnegIrity 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 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 Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) Rye grass (graze) 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 I . 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/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 ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ® Yes ❑ No Q No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. menu e e to x laln an. an o an. comme datio or any of a omme ts. awin o better explain situati d'tiona aeslammnec a ❑ Field Copy ®Final Notes 2. Mr. Keck said that rats and/or groundhogs had opened up a pipe that comes from a junction box on the concrete lot and allowed _ approx. 50 gals of waste water to enter a drainage ditch. There was no evidence of waste water reaching waters of the State. Mr. Keck thought he had this pipe closed sufficiently and it has been for several years. Mr. Keck stated that he has the pipe closed permanently now. 25. The DWQ noted that Rye needs to be added to the waste utilization plan on T 9047 field 3,4. The waste plan could show Fescue with the option of over -seeding Rye, but maintain the fescue N rate since it is not needed for a PAN deficit anyway. ewer/Inspector Name Rocky Durhamewer/Inspector E Signature: Date: 05103101 Continued Facility Number: 41-8 D.� Inspection 4/16/2(102 0 Odor Issues 26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? 27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? 28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, roads, building structure, and/or public property) 29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or. or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? aste analysis: 3-07-02 LSD 15.6 lbs.N/1000 gals. B 11-16-01 LSD 9.1 " " S.I., 6.5 lbs.N 1000 gals. B analysis dated 11-16-01 and 12-04-01 ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ No J 05103101 Date or visit: 9/t3/2001 Time:: 1240 e: Printed on: 9/13/2001 Facility Number 41 08 01%* o wl`.undow S Permitted ■ Certified [3 Conditionally Certified 0 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......................... i0 M N=U . -i£CA!5-Vailrx ltxt;,. --=- _ Cam= QWUfwA ... IWSAQ.._._. OwnerName: Iat: Atty.................................. Kerk ............................................................ Phone No: 33.6::6.85.7.466.4 ........................................................... MailingAddress: 2414t.KG.G2E......................................................................................... blian... NC.............................................................. 272A3 ............. Facility Contact: 1,ee..lZ.Ry..1S.P.Gk ................................................ Title:.:.............:.... . Phone No: Onsite Representative: Lee.ROY.Kg& ............................................................................ Integrator:...................................................................................... Certified Operator:Lcc........................................... Keck .................................................. Operator Certification Number:ZI605............................. Location of Farm: Z 1/2 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. AL ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 55 6 35 64 Longitude 79 • 37 6 4546 �";;. zr «: `etr "` Design Ca acit Desi n �z - Current Design :Current, : u g Current': P.a ulation Poultry Ca acit Po ulation Cattle " "` Ca acit l o fillitio ❑Layer ® Dairy 200 168 ❑Non -Layer JEI Non -Dairy ❑ e„ Other ''` IN,� 1 r ' 'Total Design Ca[fBCity 200 T280,000 ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Feeder to Finish �- El Farrow to Wean r ❑ Farrow to Feeder [:]Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑Boars Number of Lagoons ® ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area Holding Ponds /Solid Traps1 No Liquid Waste Management System Discharges _& Stream Impacts I. 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? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes IN No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No Waste Cgillectign _& treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ® Spillway ❑ Yes ® No Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: ......Wasie.Band......................................................................................... ............................................................................................ Freeboard (inches): 55 > '` 05103101 ntinued Facility Number: 41-08 Date of Inspection 1 9/13/2001 Printed on: 9/13/2001 A. 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ 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? UYes KNo 9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level elevation markings? ❑ Yes ® No AwWA i 10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes 9 No 11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes ® No 12. Crop type Corn (Silage & Grain) Fescue (Graze) 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 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? (ic/ 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 IN 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 IN No No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. omments prefer tow-u- WHOM): Explain any YES an we and/or any ecommendations ar any other comments. resin of faci it to etter explain situations. u additional pa es as necessary ❑ Field Copy ® Final Notes 19. Applications of waste in June 2001 did not have an associated waste sample. Still need to obtain soil samples this Fall. r. Keck plans to plant rye infields 3 and 4 of T-9047 for winter grazing. These fields are currently listed as pasture in WUP with a waste application window of June -Aug. Suggest contacting SWCD to see if application windows can be extended since owner wants to apply waste during FalllWinterlEarly Spring on these fields. w Re viewer/Inspector Name Meli sa Rosebrock� Review er/inspector Signatur r. Date: 05103101 1 Continued Facility Number: 41-08 1 DV Inspection 9/13/2001 0 Printed on: 9/13/2001 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 any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? 28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, roads, building structure, and/or public property) 29. Is the Land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ClYes Jallo ❑ Yes JJNo' O Yes Q No ❑ Yes ❑ No :Addifl6nal,qRipTents nd/, r. r Jogn.,<" ; : f•.� t � ., «tom.... w : _ . .. x+ 05103101 05103101 Type of Visit P Compliance inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation Reason for Visit X Routine O Complaint. O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access Facility Number Date of Visit: Time: EIIM Q Not O erational Q Below Threshold Permitted 1Certified [3 C7o�nditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above T�jhreshold• ... FarmName: .......IL �.. ..... Ia.i.c .. ..n.c.... ........................... County: ..... 6.1.{.�.f..�. ref........................................... OwnerName:........ .pr ..1�.. ....L!- .. '.F. ........................................................... Phone No:.... .!( ................................. .............� .......... FacilityContact:........L�.�..+�II.__........�.,i......1� Q ��..F..........Title:................................................................ Phone No:................................................... Mailing Address: ...... ta.9.i..!�.... tJ...c...... ...............ZL,?AlictY.l.., ... N.c...................a -7 ag.�......................................... OnsiteRepresentative: .......,Lee•...•iw .....)� Integrator: ......I ....................... ............ e Certified Operator: ........ L ............e.......................... ,,,Lf-C .................................................... Operator Certification Number:.....: .... ., Location of Farm: I wy t02-1 now o f Ju I ian 4-5ooih o A lanion ee- e- h urc ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry Cattle ❑ Morse Latitude ®' ' 't Longitude • 6 ®64 f'� 'Design Cu'r�erit' Swine Ca aci Population ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑ Boars �Desigp Ctir ent 3 . ;Design Current Pon]try Cattle, C� Po "ulatlotdi; ❑ Layer Dairy 1 20 0 �3 ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy E: ❑ Other Total Design Capacity. 2 O T t� sSLW z �o, aoo ' Nts ' beir of Lagoons ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area (]Spray Field Area 3, 1 IJ HoldingPQnds / Sa11d Traps: ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System `4 Discharees & Stream Imnacks 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 x No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes fio No Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Kspillway Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 fi Identier:.W..6161r,..Ir1Lt............................................................................................. Freeboard (inches): 55 5/00 ❑ Yes No Structure 5 Structure 6 Continued on buck Facility Number: — i'te of Inspection 5. Are there any immediate threats to the in ity of any of the structures observed? (ic/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes gNo seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or -�losure plan? 34-6 the ❑Yes No X (If any of questions was answered yes, and situation poses an `' �S immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) 4 t ' 7. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes XNo 8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenancelimproveme t? ❑ Yes )(No 9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level elevation markings? ❑ Yes XNo Waste Application 10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes KNo 11. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes No d 12. Crop type Corn a 1 k a Q �lt e__ I eY m j c6 m s fu 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? ❑ Yes J`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 Required Records & Documents 17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes gNo, 18. Does the facility fail to have all components of the Certified imal Waste Management an readily available? (ic/ WUP, checklists, design, maps, etc.) 1 ❑ Yes XNo 19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ irrigation, freeboard, ste)nalysis & soi sample reports) Roves ❑ No 20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes KNo 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 KNo 25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes �(No dfce�c a vre tptet 009 AthYw�ur •. . ictirres• ' deuce: abouC this visit: ' ` l "iH 4 .sn € e: � e"jEReviewer/Inspector Name 1{ try g r Revlewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 16 5/00 acility Number: tl I — I f Inspection Odor Issues 26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below Iiquid 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? 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 A No 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? Additi ona , gmMents an or ra ngs: AL d 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 Date of Visit: M10/2001 Time: 11:15 Printed on: 8/28/2001 41 8 O Not Operational O Below Threshold Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified 13 Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......................... FarmName: &&s.AatryItic.......................................................................................... County:G.vjjK9r.d ............................................ W.SRQ........ Owner Name: Cep.tia................................. Klr k............................................................ Phone No: 910,485-4644........................... ... Mailing Address: 241.6.NC.62E.............................................................. Facility Contact: ..............................................................................Title: Onsite Representative: Uc,R,.K k.......... Certified Operator:Lcc....................•...................... Mck ...................... Location of Farm: Jiu1iaxt..lY............................................................... 2.72M ............. .................................... Phone No:...................... ........ ................ Integrator: ............................................................................ Operator Certification Number:21603 ............................. 112 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. A T ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 55 f 35 « Longitude 79 • 374 F-45--111 Ci acit ❑ Wean to Feeder ei�u•i,..s Current P,o ulation Design Current ,• Poultry Ca acit P.a ulatitin • •- '" :aN;IJbes , #)e Cattle ta , i-ign rent ra citP,o ulation 1 200' :... ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑Other14 s. Total Design Capacity a Total SSL.W' 200 , '` 280,000111 ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑Boars Number of Lagoons Holding Ponds /Solid Traps d L� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Arca ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System Dischacg-es & StreamImpacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No Waste Coftetion _& Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: .................... Freeboard (inches): 49 05103101 Continued Facility Number: 41-8 1 Date of Inspection 4/10/2001 Printed on: 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tree3"'Seyere erosion, seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management 01 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? 8/28/2001 4.j., 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? ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes IN No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ 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 Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, 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 IN No 16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ® No Required Records_&Mcumgnts 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? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) ❑ Yes ® No 23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss reviewlinspection 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 © No violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit. en e e t x lain a a a a an a ommendation o an the common . a Inge f aa' otter ex lain situ f d'fo a! pa nee ❑Field Copy ®Final Notes Overall records and farm look good. Waste analysis: 3/14/01 LSD 0.67 lbs. NI1000 gals. B wer/Inspector Name Rocky Durham wer/Inspector Signature: Date: F 05103101 Continued ility Number: 41-8 4of Inspection 4/10/2001 Printed on: 8/28/2001 Qd4r Issues 26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? 27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? 28. is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, roads, building structure, and/or public property) 29. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? 30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ❑ No J 05103101 n iii ��{i � n��� �{ �l �� � lei i : f ' n § i� 1�t E •�� i " $ton Ot Wa {• �i l islon of Soil 0 Other{ Ageneyll �I (� :a `I1 � °��I l .lY��i J i.I ' �.� I � �",�l'{, i� _�� ..,'.tl 6 ��V'!{Ell.rih t { EI + •.�`� �i IG 11 �f 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 Date of Visit: 9/11/2040 'rune: 10]5 Printed on: 9/11/2000 4] 08 O Not Operational 0 Below Threshold ® Permitted ®,Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold:.. ...................... Farm Name: 1{uk'N.RalryJar., OwnerName: Lge.RQY................................. Kpa........................................ Facility Contact: la99.Xvck.......................................................... Title:...... Mailing Address: 2.41.4i.1.C.QX...................................................................... Onsite Representative: Lcg.Kvgk................................................................... ....... County: Guilford ........................................... W'jSRQ........ ....... Phone No: 33.6:485.46.6.4........................................................... .............................................. Phone No:......................................... tullan..Ac...................................... --- ...... .............. ....... Integrator:...................................................................................... Certified Operator:Ue.R...................................... Keck .................................................. Operator Certification Number:2,1695 ............................. Location of Farm: 1/2 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) at intersection of Smithwood Road and HWY 62. kA ❑ Swine ❑ Poultry 0 Cattle [I Horse Latitude 35 • 55 ' 35 Longitude 79 • 45 �� Design Current Swine Canacity Pannintion ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑ Boars Design Current Design Current Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population ❑ Layer ® Dairy 200 159 ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Other Total Design Capacity, 200 Total SSLW f 280,000 Number of Lagoons 0 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area I0 Spray Field Area Holdi%Ponds 1, Solid Traps a 1 ,, ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System Discharges & Stream Imnacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No b. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'? d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ®No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Identifier: .......Waste.P.ond.....•................................................................. Freeboard (inches): 28 5100 ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 ............................................... Continued on back Facility Number: 41-08 Date of inspection 9/11/2000 Printed on: 9/11/2000 r 5. Are there any immediate threats to the Ority of any of the structures observed? (ie/ tr*evere 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 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 Tropical corn Corn (Silage & Grain) Small Grain (Wheat, Barley, 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 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? (iel 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 N6. iolations:or :deficiencies•rvere'noted ;during•this: visit.• :You'Will receive n6•further• : , : • correspondence. about this .visit. . . . ' . Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/ r.any 'recommendations'or"a' ny rDale ' R ` `�cammenfs: Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): 7. Cows accidently got out last Thur. and damaged top of darn. Dam has been reseeded with rye and fescue and straw spread over the 19. Need to start keeping weekly freeboard readings per permit rather than every 15 days. No soil sample records for I999. Need to take 2000 samples. 0 Reviewer/Inspector Name ?Melissa Rosebrock l} , Reviewer/Inspector Signatu &K 111A 1 1/1yJAIj _ /AL/)WI / t ,,p. 1Y J Date: <-f/// /O U 5100 `I Facility Number: 41--08 Dat of Inspection 9/11/2000 Printed on: 9/11/2000 is 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 fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No M 5/00 6 ivision of Water Quality ivision of Soil and Water Conservation t O Other Agency Type of Visit ACompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation Reason for Visit Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ benied Access Facility Number bate of visit: I Permitted ® Certified 13 Conditionally Certified © Registered Farm Name: t� �.r.............:......................... Owner Name:.......... 4-.............I.......I............ ................ `i-="-Time: ® Prinled un: 7/21/2000 Not Operational O Below Threshold Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ......................... �a �i_ 1 County: ..�tl ...1.Z�... �. T]Q 1�iG1!................... ....................... Phone No:.....s:.t1.J�......6...x5........444. FacilityContact: ...............................................................................Fitle:................................... Phone No: Mailing Address: ..�.[(1.... r v..1L.....6.t-..c...... ...Tp.. 1a. n j.... t�...................... '....1...2.33. .......................... OnsiteRepresentative:.... 8.e ............ .................................... Integrator:....................................................................................... Certified Operator:......L,� ... .'.......1 �I,.............................................. Operator Certification Number:........vZ� Location of Farm: ❑ Swine [I Poultry [I Cattle [I Horse Latitude • �.i Longitude �•�« Design Current Swine Canacitv Ponulation ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ FarroW to Wean ❑ 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 RO-Non-Dairy ❑ Other J j 1 Total Design Capacity D Total SSLW Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lag, n Area 10 Spray Field Area Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System Discharges & Stream Impact~ 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 nrtn-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No h. if discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (Il'yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No e. II'discharve is ohscrved. what is the estimated flow in gal/min? d. Does discharge hypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'? ❑ Yes No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes No Waste Collection &; 'Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway ❑ YesX No S1ruCLUN I StRICLUre 2 StrUdUrC Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure Identifier: .wadi& ... .orli........................................................................................................................................................................ Frechoard (inches): 1 �� 45/00 Continued on back Facility Number: — ovi Date of Inspection Printed on: 7/21/2000 5. Are there any immediate threats to the411grity of any of the structures observed? (ie// tre , 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? El Yes)(N/o (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 �00 8. Does any pan of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance improvement? ❑ Yes >10 9. Do any stuctures 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 VNo 111. Is there evidence of over application? ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Yes 'VNo • 12, Crop type 13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designateLA the Certified Anima aste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N"No 14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes VNo 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 Wo Required Records & Documents 17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ Yes , t 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 VNo 19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ic/ 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 Nkw 21. Did the facility fail to have a actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes 1IQo 22. Fail to notify regional DWQ of emergency situations as required by General Permit? (iel discharge, freeboard problems, over application) El Yes o 23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes )?<o 24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes (kNo 25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes *0 Rio . Mh (:igris:or- deficiencies -*� re ho a#- dtp-ririg •this'visit= • :Y00 :will-keegive too; l'ttttit�r. corresnorideirce: 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): a.e eI d oFd+ A usaq4- jamq.oh6 6 0- I.Carn ha-5 bM f&,WJed 0/r-y e-w--kscue-w- J 0 %ff-j" 4he- S�Oja ILI - oea4 4 ab�r+- �4e� I nq fre_abc��4 t,&eh U_�'. 0 Reviewer/Inspector Name Reviewer/inspector Signal Fl Date: 5100 Facility Number: — of luspection �j11� I�%QQ_I Printed on: 7/21/2000 Odor Issues 26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge at/or below M No liquid level of lagoon or storage pond with no agitation? Om IT O16M XNO 27. Are there any dead animals not disposed of properly within 24 hours? %❑ Yes 28. Is there any evidence of wind drift during land application? (i.e. residue on neighboring vegetation, asphalt, ❑ Yes )iQo roads, building structure, and/or public property) 24. Is the land application spray system intake not located near the liquid surface of the lagoon? ❑ Yes Y No 30. Were any major maintenance problems with the ventilation fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes)<1No 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? 30rA -So � T �ooa 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanent/temporary cover? l .—g 3;@F' 91 NO Wks., -Lv �, rep 5100 J - 3 -n III., u€ E^:' t♦M EalDriOfSDi�andllWa_terIC01_lSetVat101ti I.i.lf i1-o'illi ' Ili(III I lI � - �+ [r I ill I i Ik I. D Other Agency u IV i'11I d i I jl.. Type of Visit O Compliance Inspection Q Operation Review O Lagoon Evaluation Reason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access Facility Number Date of Visit: 6/14/2Q00 rime: 10:45 Printed on: 9/8/2000 41 8 0 Not O erational 0 Below Threshold ® Permitted 0 Certified [3 Conditionally Certified © Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ..................... Farm Name: Kesk.'s.miry..Iu............................................................................ .............. County: G.ujj(Qr.4 ............................................ W. .SRQ........ OwnerName:Lrf,..RQY.................................. Kuk............................................................. Phone No: 9jQ:-,6.85,,:,46,6.4 ........................................................... FacilityContact:.........................................................................:....'Citle:................................................................ Phone ND:................................................... Mailing Address: U16.>vCAZE.... ..............................................hilaia-Ac .............................................................. 2.7.28.3 .............. Onsite Representative: Lelc.&Kg.ck................................................................................ Integrator:......................................... ................ .... ......................... Certified Operator:Lpe.K...................................... Kcck .................................................. Operator Certification Number:1160 ............................. Location of Farm: 1/2 miles NE of Julian on Hwy.62 (SE side) JA ❑ 5wlne ❑ Poultry ®Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude 35 • 55F-3-5--T Longitude 79 • 37 45 ; Design Current Swine Canacitv Ponulation ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑ Boars Design Current Design Current Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population ❑ Layer 110 Dairy 200 163 ❑Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Other Total Design Capacity' 200 Total SSLW 280,000 Number of Lagoons ❑ Subsurface Drains Present 110 Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area Ponds;/ Solid Traps] ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System Holdin g Discharges & Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) 2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? Waste Collection & Treatment ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Yes ® No 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes 0 No Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Stricture 6 Identifier: ................................................. ................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Freeboard (inches): 36 5100 Continued on back Facility Number: 41-8 Date of Inspection 6/14/2000 ' Printed on: 9/8/2000 �' ►• +� 5. Are there any immediate threats to th6grity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ 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 onenvironmental 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 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 Corn (Silage & Grain) 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 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? No fiolations or, :deficiencies •i e're'noted :du>i ing this: visit.:Ytiu:fviII receive nt further correspondence about this .visit. - • .. • • ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ® No ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes OR No ❑ Yes ®No ❑ Yes ®No ❑ Yes ®No ❑ Yes ®No ❑ Yes ®No Comments (refer to question #):. Ezplam any YES answers, ' dlorany recomtriendations oi'a`iay other eotriments I;j j° Use drawings of facility to better ex lain situations. (use additional a es as necessar�' ' ��i,f' P .. A l5. Y) � U 17. Need to keep a copy of the certificate of coverage with the WUP and application records. 0 19. Need to organize paper work. Had waste analysis and dates and amounts on each field. Need to complete SlurII form for Spring 2000. Start keeping weekly freeboard levels on holding pond per General Permit. V, Reviewer/Inspector Name ,Rocky Durham Millie Langley Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 5100 ,,; .15aciHty Number: 41-8 DaInspection - ti11412000 Printed on: 9/8/2000 0 40 Odor Issues 26. Does the discharge pipe from the confinement building to the storage pond or lagoon fail to discharge actor 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 fan(s) noted? (i.e. broken fan belts, missing or or broken fan blade(s), inoperable shutters, etc.) ❑ Yes ® No 31. Do the animals feed storage bins fail to have appropriate cover? ❑ Yes ® No 32. Do the flush tanks lack a submerged fill pipe or a permanentttemporary cover? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5100 Facility Number 41 S Date of Inspection 12/14/99 lime of Inspection 11:55 24 hr. (hh:mm) j] Permitted ® Certified [] Conditionally Certified [3 Registered 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated: ................. Farm Name: %*'&.JD,7trJ.110.r .............................. ................. County: uAlfaxd............................................ W,SRQ........ OwnerName: 1.uAft................................. Kl:. C............................................................. Phone No: 33.G-(8S.-.4C64........................................................... Facility Contact: .................................................... Mailing Address: 2.41.6t.NC.,(Z,E........................ Onsite Representative: .......................................... Certified Operator:l,,gCA............ ................. Location of farm: .......................... Title:.......... Phone No: .................................................I-Main..N.0................................................ I............. U.Z.3.... .......... ...... ......................I.................. Integrator: ...................................................................................... Ked.................................................. Operator Certification Number:21(QS.............................. Latitude 35 55 35 Longitude 79 • 37 45 Design Current Swine Capacity Population ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑ Boars Design Current Design Current Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population ❑ Layer ® Dairy 200 134 ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Other Total Design Capacity 200 Total SSLW 280,000 ;Number of Lagoons 10 Subsurface Drains Present ❑ 1-agoon Area 10 Spray Field Arcs Holding Ponds / Solid Traps I J ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System Discharges & Stream Im�cis I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other a. lt' discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No -- ----h—"Ifditich_zir(�e is i)hserved, diii-it reach Water of"the"State'?"{II }es—niitify DWQ) � — ❑Yes— ❑'No c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min'? d. Does discharge hypass a lagoon system? (]f yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ® No 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ® No Waste Colleclion & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway ❑ Yes ® No Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure h Identifier: Pond #1 Freeboard(inches)' 42............... ................................................................................................................................................................... 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, ❑ Yes ® No seepage, etc'.) 3/23/99 Continued on back Printed on 12/14/99 Facility Number: 41-8 Date of Inspection 12/14/99 6. Are there structures on -site which are noperly addressed and/or managed through a 0 management or closure plan? ❑ Yes N 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 N 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? El 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 ❑ Yes N No 12. Crop type Corn, Soybeans, Wheat 13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? ❑ Yes N No 14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes N No b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes N No c) This facility is pended for a wettable acre determination? ❑ Yes ® No 15. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes N No 16. Is there a lack of adequate waste application equipment? ❑ Yes N No Rec uired Records & Document. 17. Fail to have Certificate of Coverage & General Permit readily available? ❑ 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.) ❑ Yes N No 19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports) ❑ Yes N No 20. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes N 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? 0 Yes N No 24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes N No 25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes N No 0; No-violatitins:or de#xciencies.Wtite;noted diitirt'g.this: visit.•'You-Will receive nti further �� c�irresnnndence.ahoufthis.visit.�.•.�. .�. .�.�.�. .•.�.�.�.�.�.�.�. .�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�. .•.•.•.•. I Reviewer/Inspector Name Tom Yo uip _ Reviewer/Inspector Signature: 1k..- � Date: I on 12/14/99 of DWO i Facility Number 13 Registered © Certified 0 Applied for Permit 13 Permitted FarmName: ........ kwc's................. :....... .......... ........ ............ I .............. ....... I.... [low -up of DSWC review 0 Other Date of Inspection Time or Inspection 24 hr. (hh:mm) [] Not O erational Date Laastt Operated :................ county:.... U�.:L'�.x. ............ OwnerName:........................................................................................................................... Phone No:......................... FacilityContact: .............................................................................. Title:................................................................ Phone No:�....... O�i''� _.... MailingAddress: ................... ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Onsite Representative: ... 4..ec .............1...... ...... ��..ir . .... Integrator:.....................I................. ............. Certified Operatort............................................................................................................... Operator Certification Number:..................... Location of Farm: CC Latitude =• =' =" Longitude =• =' =" 4 'Des;Ign n Current" 4 0 Design Currents '���Deslgn�Currei;t,`r=, s � $wme' k Capacity Papulati6ri gPoultcy& ;Capacity Papalatwon Cattle G,a aci Po elation .. p .h' ❑Wean to Feeder ; ❑ Layer Dairy ❑Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer �] Non Dairy ❑ Farrow to Wean` ❑ Others ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish t Total Design CapBCity ❑ Gilts s ❑ Boars w R E TOtal SSL*W<, - ' F � ,Number of Lagoons / Haldtng Ponds ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ID Spray Field Area ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System General 1. Are there any buffers that need maintenancetimprovement? ❑ Yes N No 2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes 9140 Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes FfNo b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes PNo c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gallmin? d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (if yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes eE!rNo 3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes ZNo 4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes P(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 P(No 7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes [140 7/25/97 Continued on back Facility Number: • . 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes,,ffNo Structures (La 'gQ-H nsolding 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; Freeboard(ft):....s..... 1 ..!6 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes XNo 11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Zd No 12. Do any of the structures need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes �lo (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 �o (If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) 15. Crop type .......J:: xXw............._e;..14L ..49-f—tz............ .......... ................. ............................................... .................... .................................................... 16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes ONO 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? No:vialationsor rleiicieitcies:werenotedduring this:v:isit: You:r�ill receive•nottiriher•. • correspQddetce aliouf this;visit::.....:. ❑ Yes RfNo ❑ Yes P'Nlo ❑ Yes ( NO ❑ Yes [7NO ElYes . ,r-I(No ❑ Yes A No ❑ Yes �No ❑ Yes 00 ❑ Yes - ;]rNo 7/25/97 0 Division of SAW Water Conservation ❑ Other Division of Water Quality [O Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of.DSWC review O Other �i ii urww rr Facility Number Date of Inspection >< z 9B Time of Inspection 900 24 hr. (hh:mm) laRegistered ©Certified E3 Applied for Permit 0 Permitted JE3 Not Operational I Date Last Operated:..... Varna Name. ............. Owner Name: .......... LLC........... wrc4................................................................................ Phone No:..5..31Ra .1:7> :.. `........................,......... Facility Contact: ....�. ........ kctK.................................... Title: ............ 0 `l..t r................. I.............. Phone No:.................................... Mailing Address: .... a4mi. Me: ...... 16.a.c a3. ...................... Onsite Representative:.....1,.Gf13....«................................................................... Integrator: ............... Certified Operator; ....... L,np..%7....yf�GK.................................................................... Operator Certification Number;.. &0.:C ..................... Location of Farm: ..L.....1!!.f..........,1..A........a�a,,....5?ti. .................................................................................................................... .. ............................................................................ .... Latitude 0 ` 3S iL Longitude ®• 37 ` ©" Design < CurrenE x.o- Design Current y Design Current IN) Sivvme . Capacity, Population Poultry Capacity 'Population Cattle-7 Capacity. Popula tiara ❑ Wean to Feeder JE1 Layerp5lDairy Zpp rJ ❑ Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑Non -Dairy T ❑ Farrow to Wean, ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other, €�-'a '::. ❑ Darrow to Finish Total Design Capacity ❑ Gilts f. Y ❑Boars ;'' Total SSLW------------ Number of Lagoons` alding Ponds I� ❑ Subsurface Drains Present (] Lagoon Area ❑ Spray Field Area a z { ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System ' ' General 1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes $4 No 2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes IN 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 e. 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 'R No 4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes 1A No 5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes V No maintenance/improvement? 6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? ❑ Yes P.No 7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? ❑ Yes KNo 7/25/97 all— Facility Number: 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ®,No Structures (Lagoons,11olding Ponds Flush Pits etc. 9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes O.No Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: ... Fdnj..... ......................................................................................................................................................................................... Freeboard(ft): ..........3 d..............................................................................................................................................................................I.................... 10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures`? 1 ❑ Yes JRNo 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 J, 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 0 No Waste Application 14. Is there physical evidence of over application? I4si- 010-CO I%L- t Z34-24 ❑ Yes UrNo (If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) 15. Crop type ... E.-S?............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 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 fR No 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, Werc any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? 25, Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit? No.violitions°or. deficiencies.were-noted-during' this:visit.-:You'Will ric've•no•ftirther • correspondehi:e about this: visit:- :. • � . • � • . � • ..... � • , � , .. , .. • � , . , .. . • � � , ' ❑ Yes ($ No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Yes No ❑ Yes No ❑ Yes C9 No ❑ Yes] No ❑ Yes No Reviewer/Inspector Name Reviewer/Inspector Signature: L Date: I* Kouttne p Complaint p Follow-up of uwd inspection p l+c Facility Number Registered p Certified p Applied for Permit p Permitted up of uawi: review p vrner Date of Inspection Tine of lnspeciion ® 24 hr. (hh:mm) 0 Not Operational I Date Last Operated: Farm Name: K=W.a.Daixy.iUr.............................................. ........................... County: Guilford WSRO OwnerName: Lee ........................................... Keck ............................................................ Pltone No: 9.L6685-4664.......................................................... Facility Contact: Leray.Keels ......................................................Title: owacr................................................... Phone No:.................................................... Mailing Address: 24.16.NC.62E......................................................................................... Mian...XC ............................................................... 27283 .............. Onsite Representative: LerDy-Keck ................................................................................. Integrator:........................................................................................ Certified. Operator: ...... ........................................... ......................................................... Operator Certification Number: Location of Farm: A m Latitude ' ©44 estgn u Capacity_ pop, p Wean to Feeder ims -,113 Farrow to Wean 13 Farrow to Feeder p arrow to Finish . p Gilts r: p Boars Longitude ®• ©� ®iL esign • urren - estgn, Curren ._.. Poultry E� ;Capacity Population Cattle Capacity, To P p Layer 4; ,s p Non -Layer _ ... 0 . Other -' Total Design`capacify "00 TUA SSLW , 71 s.<; n Subsurface Dranis reSen n La2oon Area IF, nraV ie Fen General 1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? 0 Yes ® No 2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes ® No Discharge originated at: p Lagoon p Spray Field p Other a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? p Yes ® No b. If discharge is observed, did it. reach SUrraee Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) p 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) p Yes ® 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 maintenance/improvement? 6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design? 0 Yes ® No 7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? p Yes p No 7/25/97 aci i y Number: 4I _8 � • 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ® No Structures (Lagoons,liolding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.) 9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? E3 Yes ® No Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Stiaicture 5 Structure G Identifier: l Freeboard(ft):................3...........................................................................................................................................3................. ................3................. 10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? p Yes ® No 1. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? p Yes ® No 12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? [3 Yes ® No (If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) 13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers? p Yes p No Waste Application 14. Is there physical evidence of over application? p Yes ® No (If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) 15. Crop type ....... Carn.4S J,agr..&.Crain.)....... �xtall.CarainL(WpJzeaL.l3arley......................................................................................................................... 16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the' Anima! Waste Management Plan (A WMP)? p Yes ® No 17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? p Yes M No 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 On1y 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? Q .oo`'>v�eioi�o�lnesri.oe ra ucreise•vs'ere•.nra uring thisvisit:. You will.receive nofurther . .t::: ............................................. p Yes N No p Yes ® No Yes ® No p Yes M No []Yes p No p Yes p No p Yes p No p Yes p No Reviewer/Inspector Name Ron Linville ; ��„" �#' ` Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: m Routine O Complaint O Follow-up of DWQ inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other Date of Inspection Facility Number Time of Inspection rp-O 24 hr. (hh:mm) Total Time (in fraction of hours Farm Status: XRegistered ❑ Applied for Permit (ex:1.25 for 1 hr 15 min)) Spent on Review ❑ Certified ❑ Permitted or Inspection includes travel andprocessing) ❑ Not/Operational Date Last Operated: . ....... ........ ........../.................................... FarmName: ............. .�.,.� .......f.. .... .... �!r�....... .......... County:..... �.!.... ........................ ......... Land Owner Name:�.... . ` .. ......................................... Phone No:. l!�,(.....;�8,r.�.. � ......... % Facility Conctact:........ li'sl.. ........... ....... Title:....... Q..LJ..h.�r�....... Phone No:....................... ................................... Mailing Address:.��t.. ��.... .. �Q.�,....4 ...`i.G�.. �. �5�... ...A/. � ..... .. ,... .. ........................ OnsiteRepresentative:......Lyv g ....../::r'r.................................. Integrator:.................................................................................... Certified Operator: ...... . .... . .......... . ....................... ... . ......................... . ................ . ........... Operator Certification Number: Location of Farm: Latitude • �' ®" Longitude ®• 3 7 ` =11 Queral I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes WNo 2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Z No Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray field ❑ Other a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes OrNo b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water`? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes IR 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 9M 3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes WNo 4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes Po 5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require ❑ Yes Klo maintenance/improvement? 4/30/97 Continued on back Facility Number:........... ............... 6. Is facility not in compliance with any Wable setback criteria in effect at the time of0ign? ❑ Yes )gNo 7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge? Al* ❑ Yes - ❑ No 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes ANo Structures L.aZoons and/or Holding Ponds/ 9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Pao Freeboard (ft): Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 1 ............................ ......................... ............................ .............. .._.......... ............................ 10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes ONO 11. Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes )IVo 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? A)A ❑ Yes ❑ No Waste Applic-atlon 14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes Wo (If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) 15. Crop type ,h.., .. ........................................................... 16. Do the receiving crops s differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes PP&O IT Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes Mo 18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes J�FNo 19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ANo 20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ,PTo 21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes .'JEMo For Cer_tifted3~acilit(es Only 22. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No 23. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No 24. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ No Comments (refer to:`queshon #) Explain any YES answersand/or any reco'mmendat'i or any other comments Use;drawmgs of facility to better explain sittiations.:(use addrtional pages as necessary) l q> lop" o�cYAzY Xt.o /. �-h. If III a,,j je,4_�, d"' ') `7 ele" - ReviewerAnspector Name ReviewerlInspector Signature: Date: 9 %Q?-Z-a cc: Division of Water Quality, Wa r Quality Section, Facility Assessment Unit 4/30/97 Farm Status: Registered Farm Name: Keck'.s..Qairy-lac........................................................... Owner Name: Lee ............................................Keck.................... Mailing Address: 2416 NC 62E Onsite representative: lee.Ray-Kerk...................................... Date of Inspection Time of Inspection " 0_Use 24.hr. time_ p ou me p complaint p o ow -up ............. County: Gullfor.d ............................................... VI!SR!Q......... ........... Phone No: 685-.4.6b4.................................................................... Julian NC 27283 Integrator: ....................................................................................... Certified Operator Name: Lee.R................................................... Keck..................................................... Location of Farm: Latitude Longitude ®• ©' ®" InNot Operational Date Last Operated:................................................................................................................................................. Type of Operation and Design Capacity 1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? 2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made? b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) 3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation? 4. Was there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? 5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require maintenance/improvement? p Yes p No p Yes p No p Yes p No p Yes p No p Yes p No p Yes p No p Yes p No 13 Yes p No 6. Is facility not in compliance with any *able setback criteria? p Yes ® No 7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge (if inspection after 1 /1 /97)? 13 Yes p No 8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? p Yes p No Structures (Lagoons and/or Holding PbndA 9. Is structural freeboard less than adequate? p Yes p No Freeboard (ft): Lagoon I Lagoon 2 Lagoon 3 lagoon 4 2 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? p Yes ® No 12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? Yes p 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 adquate markers to identify start and stop pumping levels? p Yes p No Waste Application 14. Is there physical evidence of over application? p Yes p No (If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ) 15. Crop type 16. Do the active crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan? p Yes p No 17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? p Yes p No 18. Does the cover crop need improvement? p Yes p No 19. Is there a lack of available irrigation equipment? 0 Yes p No For Certified_ Facilities. Only 20. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? p Yes p No 21. Does the facility fail to comply with the Animal Waste Management Plan in any way? p Yes p No 22. Does record keeping need improvement? p Yes p No 23. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes p No 24. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with owner or operator in charge? p Yes p No Reviewer/Inspector Name Reviwerllnspector Signature: Date. JUL-14-1995 151-34 FROM DEM WATER QUALITY SECTION TO W5Rp f'.10dor10d 0 Site Requires ftediate Attention: Facility No. DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ANIMAL FEEDLOT OPERATIONS Sim visifATION REQORD . DATE: 9'S'o Zd -C, 1995 Time: Farm Name,/Own Mailing Address: County: Integratw- On Site Representative: 4 a-•- Physical AddresslLocation• �,5 r�— ; _ — ` 01�16 Type of Operation: Swine Poultry Cattle Design Capacity: j '7- Number of Animals on Site:_3 DEM Cotifieatlon Number: ACE___^__ DEM Cenification Number: ACNEW— Latitude: J S—' a . 5— k--" Longitude: 232_' _ `!1` ' Elevation: --Feet Circle Yes or No Does the Animal Waste Lagoon have sufficient freeboard of 1 Foot + 25 year 24 hour storm event (appro)imately 1 Foot + 7 inches) Yes or No Actual Freeboard: fit. Inches Was any seepage observed from the lagoon(s)? Yes Was any erosion observed? Yes 0AZ Is adequate land available for spray or No Is the cover crop adequate? 4es or No Crop(s) being utilized: r (L�k Does the facility meet SCS minimum 206Fca(from Dwellings? es No 100 Feet from Wells? Yes or No 7 Is the animal waste stockpiled within 100 Feet of USGS Blue Line Stream? Yes or W Is animal waste land applied or spray irrigated within 25 Pea of a USGS Map Blue Line? Yes or�T'a� Is animal waste discharged into waters of the state by man-made ditc flu 'ng syste . ar other ` similar man-made devices? (&x No If Yes, Please Explain. 4i, 6-e-- r',z,� Does the facility maintain adequate waste management records (volumes of manure, land applied, spray irrigated on specific acreage with cover crop)? es NoI-Vw Additional Comments: Inspector Name cc: Facility Assessment Unit Use Attachments if Needed. TOTAL P.02 Sitc . = I7IIi^c:.nre AU=Uca �Cc ✓_�23 rsc:lit� N���. ST-2 VISITATION P-Scop 7 -AT—C! •, U ` �^ 1995 Owner: �-eE . &L EEC K 'N C Y C.cim%v: C' U/ L F'd Z O Aga:it Visit::;g SitC am Ek�— _ ?,sonc: 4/o -33 3-S yo0 Cin--tor: _ LE E ROD K,EC-K,, Ftzane: 91 C1- ( 96- 4b Ca Site Repr�ccntdtivo: 1'V1 CICG� 4 CA _ - P�oac• 9 1 D to "41 1 rstsyslc�l A dds�ss: to-Z. Near. MLIiling Itiddl s �� i I r.--- I H W 2 (D Z,- •,�Jt,1Arq 4 N.C., z_z"72S3 Tync of O rcrlion.- Swino Poultry Cattle L LIDpo R.y r,csip capacity, I D Z Numlxr of Animn s on Sits: 1 12 Untitude• 35 a 5 5 ` _�' Loaxitudcc 2° 39 if Type of Insccsrticn; Ground Aerial Cirela Ycs or we Does Ehe .s idival "Waste Lag= have auMment 8echms-4 of 1 Fact + ZS vest 1-4 h= store event (appro irrmtely 1 Foot =7 inc.^.es) Yes or No er ?.=, off: Z i-te inc m For facilities w1Lh =m thaw c^e 1auratr, pImse address the camIRgcnns' i'i koat undar the cvsnuicItis Section. Wns any sacpagc o$scNed i-am to lxgcoa(s)`2 Yes ors IN i.Lc,.. cmdon of d-z dam?: Yen , a Is ad;�quatc lend av*Bable for land application? Yes or Ya Is ;fie Cava; crop adagaat✓? Yes or No AddWonal Commenuc Fat to (919) 7 i 5-3559 or Agent � I 11 1 C � r y