100038_INSPECTIONS_20171231

NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Qual

l
ater Con-servation`- Operation Review
:�'Divrsion of Sail and W_ -
[3;Division of Soil acid Water Conservation - Compliance Inspection -
_ `�Division of -Water Quality- Compliance Inspection
Other Agency- Operation Review Jr
Routine O Com laint Q Follow-u of DWQ ins ection Q Follow-u of DS«=C review Q Other
Facility Number aly
late of Inspection L�
Time of Inspection `S� 24 hr. (hh:mm)
Permitted ;3 Certified E3 Conditionally Certified ❑ Registered 10 Not O erationgal Date Last Operated:
Farm Name: S pt f:.... K—�`�. Y.ir►m.................. ......-... County: ....f1j 15t it: -...............----...................................
OwnerName: ....................A'Lw.G.......................h % ............................................I.... Phone No:.... .........................................
---........
FacilityContact: .....................................................................----..------Titlle:l...........---.----................--..---.---.................. Phone No: ........................ ...........................
�s.-
Mailing Address: ........ gtz.k..... .NtA n.......�Q.x......... Rd ......................... ...... &�,6! ....t.ph- Q �$'.W.-.......
Onsite Representative: ..............&Ulr A -At ....... aR�'................................................... Integratcir:„�..4�7??W!�s........................................................
r
Certified Operator•.... J*f Operator Certification Number: ..........................................
Location of Farm:
Qr.-..Set 4-....... ) e....ok.....Stx..........i33.G.t....D..: ..t!n.�Gt.s... .......a.........SZ....t3................................... -............................................
............ .......................... ......................... -...... --.................................................. .............. -...................................................................................
Latitude ' 6 .4 Longitude ' "
Design Current Design Current Design Current
Swine Capacity Population Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capacity Population
Wean to Feeder &40o 1[] Layer ❑ Dairy
Feeder to Finish ❑ Non -Layer ❑ Non -Dairy
❑ Farrow to Wean
❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Other
❑ Farrow to Finish Total Design Capacity
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars Total SSLW
Number of Lagoons ID Subsurface Drains Present Magoon 10 Spray Field Area
Holding Ponds 1 Solid Traps ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System
Discharges & Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation (If yes, notify DWQ)?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon ❑ Spray Field ❑ Other
a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance man-inade?
h, li' discharge is observed. did it reach: ❑ Surface Waters ❑ Waters of the State
c. if discharge is observed. what is the estimated flow in Ralhnin?
d. Does discharge bypass a lagoon system?
2. Is there evidence of past discharge from any part of the operation'?
3. Were there any adverse impacts to the waters of the State other than From a discharge?
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate?
Structure l Structure 2 Structure :3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Identifier: 1 l
Freeboard(inches): .....- ............... .............................................................................................................................................................
❑ Yes [ d No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes' R] No
❑ Yes [,No
141
❑ Yes [P No
❑ Yes A No
Structure 6
1 /6/99 Continued on back

a614y-Number: 0—,SDate of Inspection t/
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, �❑ Yes r)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 P 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 W No
8_ Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes I? No
9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required top of dike, maximum and minimum
liquid level elevation markings?
❑ Yes No
Waste Application
14. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement?
❑ Yes No
11. Is there evidence over application'? ❑ Ponding [I Nitrogen
El Yes No
(of
12. Crop type # eS�t.0. ............ �..V-t6 ............. WA-k�....... �� ................. Latr1 _..................ie:-IIm u�...................:.................................
13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)?
❑ Yes No
14. Does the facility lack wettable acreage for land application? (footprint)
❑ 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 Qj 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 ONo
19. Does record keeping need improvement? (ie/ irrigation, freeboard, waste analysis & soil sample reports)
❑ Yes ONo
24. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
ElYes �3 No
21, Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible 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 1� No
24. Does facility require afollow-up visit by same agency?
❑ Yes [ No
0No:vio:latioits-ar. deficiencies .were noted: tiurinig Ai'.visit:: —66 will:receive nog further............................... ::
eorr-espo;ideiice; 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):-
ti
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: l r Date:
1 /6/99

Division of Soil and Water Conservation ❑ Other Agency
r
=r. ivision of Water Quality'
F
r �
Routine O Complaint O Fallow -up of DWO inspection O Follow-up of DSWC review O Other
Date of Inspection
Facility Number
Time of Inspection 24 hr. (hh:ntm)
Megistered 13Certified © Applied for Permit Permitted 113 Not O erational Date Last Operated:
f� y: ry S..�W:% � lc.�......... Farm Name:.........�..��.+�:�-•��.........................#'7........................................ Count ... ............. .......................
Owner Name:...............`L.YN .... ... . Phone No: �� ?1 �..... . .................
t
............. �-................................... -7.
Facility Contact: ..... �.. ,,.............�,6 s,.L .... Title:........ . ......... Phone No:
Mailing Address: ..... ...1.'k.Z.1 .......... &).r...w.::.....CC>.V ....---..... ........ ..............1*4...................---..---.---...............--------
OnsiteRepresentative:-..-. ya p. ............,���. .... . Integrator:.....��<C?tYlr41�... ........ ................... ......................................
Certified Operatorz_j.1i°f ¢-..'. .............. .... ........ ....................... I......... Operator Certification Number,..........................
Location or r arm:
...................... .............1....... . .....�.,...... ar+r,�.. ............... .............
.......S,F...............F`'`
................................. ...... .................... .................................................. . .
Latitude • 0` " Longitude ' 04 0"
Wean to Feeder
1,L106
&4100
❑ Feeder to Finish
❑ Farrow to Wean
ffil.
❑ Farrow to Feeder
❑ Farrow to Finish
❑ Gilts
❑ Boars
General
1. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? ElYes ❑ No
2. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes Rf No
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 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. 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?
6. Is facility not in compliance with any applicable setback criteria in effect at the time of design?
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes BtNo
❑ Yes RNo
❑ Yes No
-Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes UNo
7. Did the facility fail to have a certified operator in responsible charge?
7/25/97
❑ Yes ®-No

Facility Number: —
8. Are there lagoons or storage ponds on site which need to be properly closed? ❑ Yes KNo
Structures (Lagoons
,Holding Ponds, Flush Pits, etc.)
9. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Yes allo
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:......................................................................................................................................
Freeboard(ft):...........3.................. .................................... ...................................
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? gYes ❑ No
12. Do any of the structures need maintenance/improvement? fiq 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 o
Waste Application
14. Is there physical evidence of over application? ❑ Yes c@ No
(If in excess of WNW, or runoff entering waters of the State, notify DWQ)
15. Crop type
.......................... ...................................... ...��.f................._....................�s�c,,t.
16. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Animal Waste Management Plan (AWMP)? ❑ Yes WNo
17. Does the facility have a lack of adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 10 No
18. Does the receiving crop need improvement? ❑ Yes KNo
19. Is there a lack of available waste application equipment? ❑ Yes IM No
20. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes GKNo
21. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on -site representative? ❑ Yes J? No
22. Does record keeping need improvement? Ayes o
For Certified or Permitted Facilities Only
23. Does the facility fail to have a copy of the Animal Waste Management Plan readily available? ❑ Yes jig 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? i&Yes ❑ No
0- No.vialations of deficiencies: wer`notedluring this.visit:• You;MR,receive' - ii6ltirther : -
: corrOPOildence About this: visit:- : : _ : ' ' :..: _
I p i1%Lr � ��� �i�r 4 t7 `]- - ��� /i- ✓' �. � c,�.�c>lLLC v... �J-C.-� {��a.+F-r!'-►,. ,� %Sv {'�f � s ✓Ji..R.v� �
ZJ9 �
�� �f�.y.,=i-< ��l £� � l`I ' j;/,j ��s�rr.v �•�/Is �',. 3p !r
`•//Z 0
22. Gam, / 7121117 +►
Reviewer/Inspector Name
Reviewer/Inspector
Date: