040023_INSPECTIONS_20171231

0 Division of Water Quality
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
r
ype of Visit O Compliance Inspection O Operation Review © Lagoon Evaluation
eason for Visit O Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Emergency Notification O Other ❑ Denied Access
Facility lumber 4 23 Date of Visit: 2-21-2002 Time: 1:00
O i\ot O >'er ational 0 Below Threshold
❑ Permitted ❑ Certified ❑ Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered Date Last Operated or Above Threshold: ...................
Fara; Nance: A..�.?..1.'1t�lCSs-D.�i�C3. k.ax�11...................................... ................... Count-*: A1150JI................................................. FRO .............
(honer -Name: l)J........................................... J.Y.ki lus.........
fl ;ling ,address: k'.A.k;ox.26.1.............................................................
Facilitv Contact: lirka1..1.ltkalxSlttl........................ ............ :......_.Title:
Phone No: 82.6-8.41.7 ...............................................
1ttSA.tl.Y.lkllr.>\...................................................... «$0Q7
Phone No: .............
......................................
Onsite Representatives ltu sell..Skke�,..el�ra,kOh�tsOr�,.kkuckC.�Ykl�k�ss............. Integrator:......................................................................................
Certified Operator: ................................................... ............................................................. Operator Certification Number...........................................
Location of Farm:
-arm located west of US 52, just south of SR 1637, south of Ansonville NC. �
I IV
❑ Swine ❑ Poultry ® Cattle ❑ Horse Latitude J 35 Longitude80 • © 15
Design Current
Seine Cauacitv Ponulation
❑ Wean to Feeder
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑
Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
Design Current Design Current
Poultry Capacity Po ulation Cattle Capacity Population
❑ Layer ® Dairy 100 ] 3
❑ Non -Layer I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacitl 100
Total SSLW 140,000
Number of Lagoons 1 ❑ Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area ❑ spray Field Arca
Holding Ponds / Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste ,Management System
DischarLes & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
DischarL-e originated at. ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If dischatlye 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 discliarge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min?
d. Roes discharge bypass a lagoon system`? (If yes, notify T)WQ)
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 .0 'Treatment
4. Is stora,e capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate'? ❑ Spillway
Structure 1 Sirucmre 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure
Identifier: ................................... ..
Freeboard (inches): 36 _
05103101
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
❑ Yes ® No
Structure 6
Continued

Facility Number: 4-23 Date of inspection 2-2152002
Comments (refer to question 4): 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): 'El Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
5.
Are there any inunediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion,
❑ Yes
® No
Water Conservation District. Russell Sikes (Anson Co. Ext.) working with new manager.
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
® 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
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 deterrtunation?
❑ 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? (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
[3 Nu
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?
E]Yes
❑ No
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ii\o violations or deficiencies were noted during this visit. You will receive no further correspondence about this visit.
Comments (refer to question 4): 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): 'El Field Copy ❑ Final Notes
Inactive operation lagoon evaluation:
Brian Johnson now operator of facility. lagoon operation covered by new Waste Management Plan written by Brown's Creek Soil &
Water Conservation District. Russell Sikes (Anson Co. Ext.) working with new manager.
Reviewer/Inspector Name Paul Sherman
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date:
11/t?3/Ul Continued

Patility Number: 4-23 Date of Inspection 2-21-2002
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?
0. 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 permanenthemporary cover?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes ❑ No
Additional Comments and/orDrawings:
i
7
05/03/01