100037_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
® Division of Water Quality
Q Routine O Complaint Q Fellow-u ' of DWQ inspection Q Follow-up of DSWC review Q Other
Date of Inspection 3 9'
Facility \umber - Time of Inspection 1 Z •24 hr. (hh:mm)
© Registered q Certified 0 Applied for Permit © Permitted 113 Not O eratinnal Date Last Operated: ....................•„•„
Farm Name: �1}rs r'c County: -Y}'�In1�,Ck.........
.4�(ts.r�......C...t...f................................................................---......................................
Owner Name: ........ ..t�mk.ki ..............................................
Facility Contact:
r
Title:
........... Phone No: :.`it.G)...1..'SLSD................
PhoneNo: ....................................................
MailingAddress: .... 5................alt?...... .:.......►11 iA1....................-..................... .....................................................Q...........
Onsite Representative:...... �............Y.kGY.V.kr....................................................:.... Integrator:.... &U.jxL ..............................................................
Certified Operator,................................................................................. Operator Certification Number;....
Location of Farm:
..... ......................... ................................ ................. ............ .... ......... I ........_._ ........._........_.......................... .. ...... .......
Latitude �•.�' �" Longitude �• �' 0"
h Design Current Design Current M Design urrent
Swuee Capacity Population Poultry °Capacity 'Population. Cattle Capan cityL Populatio_'
...
Wean to Feeder qCo 10 Layer ❑ Dairy
y El Feeder to Finish ❑Non -Layer
❑Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other ry�
❑ Farrow to Finish Tbtal;Destgn Capacity„ (�
r�
❑ Gilts
'Boars .TO iiLsSLW:; �, � Z, lfU"b
Number- of L'aeiwns /Holdins'-Ponds '�� :` ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area ❑Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste
General
L Are there any buffers that need maintenancelimprovement? ❑ Yes ® No
2. 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 EN No
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes EI No
c. If discharge is observed, what'is the estimated flow in val/min?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes FK] No
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
QU Yes
❑ No
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
No
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
❑ Yes
C9 No
maintenance/improvement?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes
0 No
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
❑ Yes
12 No
7/25/97
Continued
on bark

Facility Number: . b — 3
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes IA No
Structures f Lagoons,Ilolding Ponds, Flush fits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? El Yes �] No
Structure l Structure ? Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
.: ... .........................................................................................................................."-.................
Freeboard (ft)� .............�... .........................
.......................... ................................... .................................... .... .......:............................................................
10. Is seepage observed from any of the structures? ❑ Yes No
11. is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed'? ❑ Yes No
12. 1 Do any of the structures need ma in ten ancelimprovement? 51 Yes ❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ) `
a
13. Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers" ❑ Yes �y] No
Waste Application /"
14. is there physical evidence of over application'? ❑ Yes ® No f
(if in excess of WMP. or runoff entering waters of the State. notifv DWQ) ,
15. Crop type ...........�5�:.................................6.e.. rAj1P................................. S-r-lAt..... in.............................. '
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes 5U ,No
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ® No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes ® No
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes (9 No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Yes ❑ No
21, Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative'., ❑ Yes K] ,No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only,
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes No
24. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes §] No
25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit" ❑ Yes ® No
0 No.violations or deficiencies were noted during this.visit. Vou.will receive no further
correspondence about this.visit'.• : -
Comments.(refer to question #): ,Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comnnents
Use+drawings of facility to:betterexplain situations. (use additional pages`as necessa'rv). " 4
:....
&S & V,50A o w 666W ; nkAA' ?;cC, ay�.t�ta�a t
m oda .4 wn-% 06Srmt 6es-je k 5i,�_ an • 1 _1� Oa S fto t%c ka4vi e a t T
S �&ttp WAS J1Sed Ae �vj,,� ux%k 64ck- We �d 1�4f Silt�lat.
atLa-1 0- 4t%&. (oON skwl) b-C "-se&M.
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name ' r e. ]A)rtin"/�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: q

❑ DSWC Animal Feedlot Operation Review
®DWQ Animal Feedlot Operation Site Inspection 4
14DRoutine O Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWO insuc'ction O Follow-up of DSWC: review O Other
Date of Inspection /I -/g 5'1
E: Facility Number
Time of Inspection /2: 30 24 hr. (hh:mm)
(] Registered [3 Certified [3 Applied for Permit ,aPermitted JE3 Not Operational Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: .... �.�... yt?2.bA111............. County:. ��!F ,S. L.G....................................
Owner \ame:...gat?:.......................... iqJ Phone No:............... ....... ................................................
!]................................................��
Facility Contact: ..... ��.� �... Title: Q�� Phone no: 7 �N 7
r Z - �F... ............................
Mailing Address:.... .... s5 f' ... ...<.. Y..F. uG" .... .. .............
Onsite Representative :---.Yjrt.. .1� ( ,_-.....2,iF :1.f t........................................... Integrator:.-. Q��,� �.
Certified Operator;. `�1`?(a�..........Ufm,`,00................................ Operator Certification Number ,............ :............................
Location of Farm:
..................................................................................................................................................---................--..---------- ........................ .................
.... .
Latitude Longitude �• 0` �=`
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 I Dairy
❑ Non -Layer I I I JE1 Non -Dairy
❑ Other
Total Design Capacity : InIA7)
Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons / Holding Ponds U ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑ Lagoon Area 10 Spray Field Area
❑ No Liquid Waste ibfanagement System
General
I. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation`?
Discharge originated at; ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-made?
b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Surface Water'? (if yes. notify DW"Q)
c. If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in al/ntin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system'? (If yes, notify DWQ)
3. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation?
4. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than from a discharge?
5. Does any part of the waste management system (other than lagoons/holding ponds) require
maintenance/improvement?
b. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes jQ No
❑ Yes MNo
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes 91 No
❑ Yes R1 No
❑ Yes 2 No
❑ Yes No
14 Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
Continued on back
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97

Facility Number: /tZ) 3
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes 91 No
Structures (L:agoons 1loldin Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 19 No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 'Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Freeboard(ft):..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.............
10.
Is seepage observed from any of the structures?
❑ Yes
® No
11.
Is erosion, or any other threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
® Yes
❑ No
12.
Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement?
® Yes
❑ No
(If any of questions 9-12 was answered yes, and the situation poses
an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWQ)
13.
Do any of the structures lack adequate minimum or maximum liquid level markers?
❑ Yes
® No
Waste Application
14.
Is there physical evidence of over application?
❑ Yes
KNo
(If in excess of WMP, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15.
crop type s.....t.`.(,.�...........................................--..................................�'. ....
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
EZNo
18.
Does the receiving crop need improvement?
® Yes
❑'No
19.
is there a lack of available waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
10 No
20.
Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes
ER No
21.
Did Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative?
❑ Yes
iffNo
22.
Does record keeping need improvement'?
❑ Yes
($No
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23.
Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available?
❑ Yes
No
24.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP?
❑ Yes
o
to
25.
Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Permit?
El Yes
0' No.violations or deficiencies were -noted during this visit.- Xou,will receive no further
correspondence about this:visit..:. ' , ...:
Continents (refer tq question #) ;AExplain any YES answers and/or any,recommendations>or any other connmenbL
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary)
-.
�PA'_(2�0 r3FtrdCz�
t--,- 13 £. Coy"--i- S S s R� od s jo-O 4q, • £ 'P S`r>
P(Lrc,rn,
s3xtTf:l,32- 0>-� a 5,.,5 1 .pvr►P �. ✓�2ff
0- 67-, '.5 - Y z - t
7/25/97
Reviewer/Inspector Name f
Reviewer/inspector Signature: Date: %!� '�—