Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090107_Routine_20210916Facility Number 9 T- r acne i c40:f AO 9D Division of Water Resources 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation 9 j K2.1 0 Other Agency I I Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance Reason for Visit: V Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access Date of Visit: 9. Ui•gi Arrival Time: Departure Time: Farm Name: Tu "r1 tl) 41 CrnPLfl ftffiI I N C Owner Name: W 01t90 J(V 0 n gGtO I v Mailing Address: Physical Address: rr Facility Contact: Curt( )(1 IX* Onsite Representative: GI rile Owner Email: Phone: OCT 7 0 2021 DEQ/DWR WQROS FAYFTTFNILLX REGION/ Title: T(Ch Certified Operator: tt) bp, t L 1 V 1 fl 9 91011 Back-up Operator: Location of Farm: Latitude: Phone: Integrator: C rn Certification Number: Certification Number: Longitude: Swine Design Current Capacity Pop. Wean to Finish Wean to Feeder Feeder to Finish ‘i..Farrow to Wean Farrow to Feeder Yloo moo Farrow to Finish Gilts Boars Other Wet Poultry Design Current Capacity Pop. Layer Non -Layer Dry Poultry Design Current Capacity Pop. Layers Non -Layers Pullets Turkeys Turkey Poults Other Cattle Design Current Capacity Pop. Dairy Cow Dairy Calf Dairy Heifer Dry Cow Non -Dairy Beef Stocker Beef Feeder Beef Brood Cow Discharges and Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other: a. Was the conveyance man-made? b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)? d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) 2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? 3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes `® No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes '`allo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes "53,No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA 0 NE ❑ Yes 1:5\No ❑ NA ❑ NE Page 1 of 3 5/12/2020 Continued Facility Number: 9 - 10'j (Date of Inspection: q• I(p> 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check the appropriate box(es) below. ❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey D Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance: ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes I] No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels 26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? 27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? Other Issues 28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document and report mortality rates that were higher than normal? 29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately. 30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application) 31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other: ❑ Yes ❑ Yes No �No ❑ Yes IV No n Yes No n Yes cNo ❑ Yes IN No 32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? 33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? 34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes IN No ❑ Yes NI No ❑ Yes IN No El NA ❑NE ❑ NA ❑NE ❑ NA ❑NE ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑NA ❑NE ❑ NA ❑NE ❑ NA ❑NE ❑ NA ❑NE CO is Use date' wings of in any YES a n situations (us . oil anaI lis ov0 caILflONi. tu(lg sLrve\-1 dve 1z13Ilal M'w,\ Ra msts Fie�gc f� t�ur Ere{ftri9cij1'Ofl dTJ. vlovr Reviewer/Inspector Name: Reviewer/Inspector Signature: tt Ve or MnOri Phone: YI9 fNc 910 Page 3 of 3 2/4/2015 Facility Number: 9 - 101 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? Identifier: Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): Observed Freeboard (in): Structure 1 f� 6W ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 west - No 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes tNo ❑ NA ❑ NE (i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a ❑ Yes IKI No ❑ NA ❑ NE waste management or closure plan? If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR 7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? 8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? (not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks) 9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require maintenance or improvement? Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance or improvement? 11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes Eq No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes To ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE 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 Approved Area 12. Crop Type(s): , 1'tJ el veee4Ctr. wheat, ,7o j1J"`Gan 13. Soil Type(s): Iv[ lK.) MjQ19 \iGflt 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? 15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes Nq No ❑ NA ❑ NE El Yes 1SNo ❑ NA ❑ NE 16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable R Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE acres determination? /� 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE 18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes * No ❑ NA ❑ NE Required Records & Documents 19. Did the facility fail to have the 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 ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other: 21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes \KR No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code ❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections El Sludge Survey 22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Nni..No ❑ NA ❑ NE 23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 0 Yes NNo ❑ NA ❑ NE Page 2 of 3 5/12/2020 Continued