Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout310878_INSPECTIONS_20171231NORTH CAROLINA Department of Environmental Qual f 00ivision of Water Quality Facility Number0TJ O Division of Soil and Water Conservation O Other Agency Type of Visit Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance Reason for Vislteo(5"Routine O Complaint 0 Follow up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: fh- Region: LILZZ Farm Name: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Physical Address: Facility Contact: Onsite Representative: Certified Operator: Back-up Operator: Location of Farm: Swine Wean to Finish Wean to Feeder Feeder to Finish Farrow to Wean Farrow to Feeder Farrow to Finish Gilts Boars Other ❑ Other Title: Owner Email: Phone: Phone No: A Integrator: v Operator Certi6cat n Number: Back-up Certification Number: Latitude: = o =. Longitude: = ° ❑ = Design Current Design Current Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population ❑ La er �1❑ Non -Layer Dry Poultry ❑ La ers ❑ 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? Design Current Cattle Capacity Population ❑ Dairy Cow ❑ Dairy Calf ❑ Dairy Heifej ❑ Dry Cow ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Beef Stocker ❑ Beef Feeder ❑ Beef Brood Cowl Number of Structures: =. b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) 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) 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 { Flo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE 12128104 Continued Facility Number: — ZZY Date of Inspection Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes,,201%o ❑ NA ❑ NE a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes J5-3Qo ❑ NA ❑ NE Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: f Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): Observed Freeboard (in): 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [lo ❑ NA ❑ NE (ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed ❑ Yes �kNo ❑ 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 ff No ❑ NA ❑ NE 8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes J2'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 ErNO ❑ NA ❑ NE maintenance or improvement? Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [)do ❑ NA ❑ NE maintenance/improvement? 11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑� ❑ NA ElNE ❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.) ❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 Ibs ❑ 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? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 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?[] Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 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 Ccimmeptsr(referto$question #) Explain any.YaESSanswers andlar any recommendations or any other comments. Used , n s of�fac ltty to Kett r xlain� si!`tna (use additional pages as.uecessary), .>Ma Nor Reviewer/Inspector Name phone: Reviewer/Inspector Signature: � Date: Pnuo 2 of .; 12128104 t7ondnued Type of Visit Otompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance Reason for Visit 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other ❑ Denied Access Date of Visit: Arrival Time: fj �; , S (1 y Departure Time: County: Region:Al ! Farm Name: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Physical Address: Facility Contact: Onsite Representative: Certified Operator: — Back-up Operator: _ Location of Farm: Title: Owner Email: Phone: �jPho a N- Integrator• Operator Certification Number: Back-up Certification Number: Latitude: = o = 1 = 6f Longitude: = o = 6 = il Design Current Design Current DesiMR@urrent Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population Cattle Capaulation ❑ Wean to Finish ❑ Layer ❑ DairyCow ❑ Wean to Feeder ❑ Non -Layer ❑ DairyCalf ❑Feeder to Finish ❑ DairyHeifer ❑ Farrow to Wean Dry Poultry ❑ D Cow ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Layers El Beef Stocker ❑ Gilts Non -Layers ❑ Beef Feeder ❑ Boars ❑ Pullets T ❑ urke s ❑ Beef Brood Coyd Other ❑ Turkey Poults iNumber of Structures: ❑ Other ❑ Other I 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) 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) 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? Page I of 3 ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 12128104 Continued i ` a lky Number: -Z Date of Inspection lO _ ,7 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 Structu e l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): •,°''z �t�; Observed Freeboard (in)� 5. Are thereIany immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑Yes ❑ No El NA El 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 Iack 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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE maintenance or improvement? Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE maintenancelimprovement? Ill . 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 l0 lbs ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil ❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drifl ❑ 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE 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?❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 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 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): 4C Reviewer/Inspector Name sd't l Phone: a j �Y Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: J 12128104 Continued Type of Visit P'Eompliance Inspection Q Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance Reason for Visit Routine Q Complaint Q Follow up Q Referral Q Emergency Q Other El Denied Access Date of Visit: Arrival Time: A f Departure Time: � County: Region:/ Farm Name: ! /G[ &"l 44 V_ /Cr /t Q Owner Email: Owner Name: Mailing Address: Physical Address: Facility Contact: Title: Onsite Representative: K Certified Operator: Back-up Operator: Phone: Phone No: Integrator: Operator Certification Number: Back-up Certification Number: Location of Farm: Latitude: 0 n = & = « Longitude: = o 0' 0 « DFlo; igu Current Design Current Design C►urrent Swine Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population C*attle Capacity Population ❑ an to Finish ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy Cow an to Feeder Discharges &Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE Discharge originated at: El Structure El Application Field El Other a. Was the conveyance man-made? El 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? El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State El Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE other than from a discharge? Page 1 of 3 12/28/04 Continued Facility Number: Date of Inspection .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 Suture 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6 Identifier: 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) 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? 11. 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) ( —_jC 13. Soil type(s) 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 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 ? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 1.8. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or an recommendations or any other comments Use drawings of facility to better explain situations. (use additional pages as necessary): ; , E Reviewer/Inspector Name I zfAr1r1L I Phone:Of ReviewerfInspector Signature: Date: Paee 2 of _3 12 RIW Continued facility Number: — Date 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. ❑ VsTUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design El Maps [I Other 21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification ❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking KCrop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code 22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE Other Issues 28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 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? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 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 ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) 32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE Additional Comments and/or Drawings: C1010 Vle s OY\, Ctce(W fCAS narlsf, (TA_xS 72�_ f_f�? .'r V�kyr\vt krn 1 I n �00 Z e V \j N(Z) cky-'L N ON.CAAS AfV 50, C� , Page 3 of 3 12128104