Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout820713_INSPECTIONS_20171231NUH I H UAHULINA Department of Environmental Qual Type of Visit ® Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance Reason for Visit ® Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access Date of Visit: Arrival Time: 'pp Departure Time: S.�Qa County: 5 Region: Farm Name: 6_9 Cm4 A lu rse-y�`,_ �1 -' �) � Owner Email: Owner Name: �+IK IMOVW, kcK/ ye.✓ f4rr,S LLC Phone: Mailing Address: Physical Address: Facility Contact: Grcx- r M&DV!L= Title: �GE�.. Sa<-e.-. Phone No: Onsite Representative: art Lv 6zy<__ Integrator, Ywur X! „8ras✓n/ Certified Operator: Operator Certification Number: Back-up Operator: Back-up Certification Number: Location of Farm: Latitude: E-1 0 0 ; = Longitude: F-1 ° F-1' 0 Discharges & Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? Design Current Design Current;_ Design Current ❑ NA ❑ NE Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population { Cattle Capacity Population ean to Finish ri,511e ❑ La er ❑Dai Cow P3 No ean to Feeder 3 Z O ❑Non -La ereder b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑Dai Calf to Finish �i 'I ;,•' E]Dairy Heifer Farrow to Wean` Dry Poultry Y El Dry Cow '- ❑ Farrow to Feeder �.3;, fi " ❑ La ❑ Dairy ❑ Farrow to Finish S, ers ElNon-La Non -Layers ❑ Beef Stocker ❑ Gilts ❑ NE El Beef Feeder ❑ Boars El Pullet ❑ Beef Brood Cowl Other ❑ Turkeys El Turkey Poulis ❑ Yes ❑ Other ❑Other '.Y Number of Structures: other than from a discharge? Discharges & Stream Impacts 1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? El Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes P3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes V9 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 NfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE 2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes RINo ❑ NA ❑ NE 3. Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State ❑ Yes RfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE other than from a discharge? Page 1 of 3 12/28/04 Continued Facility Number: 3 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? Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Identifier: -1 Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): Observed Freeboard (in): i 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) 6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or closure plan? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE Structure 5 Structure 6 ❑ Yes P§ No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes T No ❑ NA ❑ NE If any of questions 4-5 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 (A No ❑ NA ❑ NE maintenance or improvement? Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need maintenance/improvement? ❑ Yes V No ❑ NA ❑ NE 11. Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes A] 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 Drift ❑ Application Outside of Area 12. Crop type(s) 46"i�/ s. 13. Soil type(s) 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE 15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes 16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination ? ❑ Yes 17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE No ❑ NA ❑ NE P]No [:INA EINE M 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): 7, zoos ! AL Reviewer/Inspector Name _ s Phone•q33 -33v a Reviewer/InspectorSignature: Date: /Q—fp—i�00� Page 2 of 3 12/28/04 Continued Facility Number: go— Date of Inspection 0 yO- Re uired Records & Documents 19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? D Yes (9No ❑ NA ❑ NE 20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWW readily available? If yes, check ❑ yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE the appropirate box. ❑ WUp ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ 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 ❑ Crop 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 19 No ❑ NA ❑ NE 25_ Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? ❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE 26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes VjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE 27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes P No ❑ NA ❑ NE Other Issues 28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes 17 No ❑ NA ❑ NE 29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes [;TNo ❑ 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 91 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 ONo ❑ 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 12128/04 Type of Visit r♦ Compliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance Reason for Visit • Routine O Complaint O Follow up O Referral O Emergency O Other ❑ Denied Access Date of Visit: 7 -/J -per Arrival Tune: �/;� � Depurture'rime: � County: A42 -2p -as ) Region: �O Farm Name: -r+ !!_ Blti.rl— �l �n _— Owner Email: Owner tName: Tohn — _iGl4%r �7 Phone:Ca` Mailing Address: Physical Address: Facility Contact: Title: Onsite Representative: Integrator: Certified Operator: Back-up Operator: Location of Farm: Swine Phone No: Operator Certification Number: Back-up Certification `umber: Latitude: ❑" =' 0" longitude: =0=, ❑ Design Current Design Current Capacity Population Wet Poultry Capacity Population ❑ Wean to Finish ❑ l.a yer ❑ Wean to Feeder JEJ Non -Lave[ 2T.ceder to Finish 111yao ❑ Farrow to Wean ❑ Farrow to Feeder ❑ Farrow to Finish ❑ Gilts ❑ Boars Other ❑ Other Dry Poultry ❑ Layers ❑ Nott -La crs ❑ Pullets ❑ Turkeys ❑ -I urkey Poults ❑ Other Discharees & 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 Heifei ❑ Div Cow ❑ Non -Dairy ❑ Beef Stocket ❑ Beef Feeder ❑ Beef Brood Cowl I b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State" (If yes, notih, DWQ) c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State {gallons}'., Number of Structures: ❑ d. Does discharge bypass the %t-astc management system? (II'yes. notify DWQ) 2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any pan of the operation? I Were there any adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the Waters of the State other than from a discharge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA L?NE ❑ 1' es ❑ No ❑ NA D tvE ❑ 1'es [I No [I NA El NE ❑ NA NNE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ElLr NA ,❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ['NC 12128/04 Continued r = Facility Number: 2 —713 Date of Inspection Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 91QE a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE Structure I 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 Droh 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 DNE 8. Do any of the stuctures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ONE (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 ❑'RE maintenance or improvement? Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [nE mai ntenance/improvement? 11, Is there evidence of incorrect application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA E? RE ❑ 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) 13. Soil type(s) 14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? El Yes El No ❑ NA ,EIrKE L',I NNE 16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable acre determination` ❑ Yes ❑ No 1:1 NA E 17_ Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application`? El Yes [--]No El NA ,ETN' ETNE 18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA D<E Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any recommendations or any other comments. Use drawings oif"fac#ity to better exp" _situations. (use additional pages as necessary): Reviewer/Inspector Name lAack ��a �� . r Phone: y1 U- kg4-1 SyI ext 730 Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 7 12128/04 Continued Facility Number. g, — 3 1Date of Inspection Required Records & Documents 19. Did the facility fail to have Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? 20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check the appropirate box. ❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design [:]Maps ❑ Other ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑<F, ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 2[vE ❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Annual Certification ❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rain Inspections ❑ Weather Code 22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? 23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? 24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 25. Did the facility fail to conduct a sludge survey as required by the permit? 26. Did the facility fail to have an actively certified operator in charge? 27_ Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessment (PLAT) certification? Other Issues 28. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? 29. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals within 24 hours and/or document 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? 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 General Permit? (ie/ discharge, freeboard problems, over application) 32. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative? 33. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency'? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA aNE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [`TE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑?QE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA D1VE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 2'1�E ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [2,<E ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑?GE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 3!�E ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA f NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA El Yes ❑ No ElE NA ,DNE NE Additional Comments and/or Drawings: . Fur* -7 4s 1707L %eerl Ca.,.S 12/28/04 r . t�d:Water,CflnserV a IQ 10 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up of DWQ inspection 0 Follow-up of DSWC review 0 Other w Facility Number /3 Date of Inspection Time of Inspection �p 24 hr. (hh:mm) 0 Permitted E3 Certified 0 Conditionally Certified E3 Registered 113 Not O erational I Date Last Operated: p ....... _........ Farm Name: ........... li;.!...... .... .......-"..." ................I........ County: ........... 2u,".1.��,111-►C.... ............... ........ I.............. d Z ,Z Owner Name:........... , !, ......e v/!!........................................................... Phone No: �l ...................................../ ........................ Facility Contact: > ... Title: Phone leo•................................................... MailingAddress:�...... .._jr..l....�.. 21.21���....................................................... ....... .. ..... ..........:........� ........ // ...._. .21.........21 ... Onsite Representative: ........ ,M// �,tL-•.....IG✓� ... / .................... Integrator:.......... ls.`.Q:................... Certified Operator-_...... ".1/v!/l..rA�..........:� �.w��..................................... Operator Certification Number:.......................................... Location of Farm: Latitude ' 6 « Longitude 0 + it Design . Current Ow111c . t. apacity ❑ 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 L.Po ulation ❑ Layer ❑ Dairy ❑ Non -Layer I I I I[] Non -Dairy I 1 ' ❑ Other Total Design Capacity Total SSLW Number of Lagoons" ❑Subsurface Drains Present ❑Lagoon Area 1[] Spray Field Area Holding Ponds / Solid Traps° ❑ No Liquid Waste Management System Dischargt_-j & Stream impacts I . Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? TR Yes ❑ No Discharge originated at: ❑ Lagoon N Spray Field [I Other a. If discharge is observed, was the conveyance tnan-made? E] Yes IQ No b. If discharge is observed, did it reach Water of the State'? (Il' yes, notify DWQ) ❑ Yes tS No c_ If discharge is observed, what is the estimated flow in gal/min? d. Does discharge bypass a lagonn system? (If yes, notify DWQ) 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 S Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (freeboard plus storm storage) less than adequate? ❑ Spillway Structure I Structure 2211 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Idcniilicr: Freeboard(inches): ......".......................... .................. .................... ..............."."......................."............................................. 5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? (ie/ trees, severe erosion, 3/23/99 4 seepage, etc.) ❑ Yes No ❑ Yes No ❑ Yes XNo ❑ Yes ;&No Structure 6 ❑ Yes P'No Continued on back Facility Number; --71,7 1 Date of Inspection 6. Are there structures on-site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a waste management or closure plan? (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? 8. Does any part of the waste management system other than waste structures require maintenance/improvement? 9. Do any stuctures lack adequate, gauged markers with required maximum and minimum liquid level elevation markings? Waste Application 10. Are there any buffers that need maintenance/improvement? 11. Is there evidence of over application? K Excessive Ponding ❑ PAN 12. Crop type A110„.-110 [:]Yes ;K No ❑ Yes 29 No ❑ Yes i& No ❑ Yes PJ:No Yes KNo Yes ❑ No 13. Do the receiving crops differ with those designated in the Certified Animal Waste Management Plan (CAWMP)? N'Yes E] No 14. a) Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes ❑ No b) Does the facility need a wettable acre determination? ❑ 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 readily available? ❑ Yes ❑ No 19. 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? (ic/ 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 ❑ No 23. Did Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with on-site representative? ❑ Yes JR No 24. Does facility require a follow-up visit by same agency? Yes ❑ No 25. Were any additional problems noted which cause noncompliance of the Certified AWMP? ❑ Yes )�LNo :: NO.0olafigris'o:r• di fciendbe •*(eri` ngtea ilitrEng this:visit: Yoe>E will i-eceiye fib further corres o deuce: ab i' f this visit :: :: :: ::: :: : : : Comments (refer to questtion #) ` Explain any YFS answers and/or any recommeni'lattons or' any other comments = — 3 Use di %Ji of facih to`better eac lain sttuaiions -' - _& _y P (use addtdonal pages:as /• %>j6/c cUir,t�.d � G✓� Laiy9.! -.� r / /��O/�.fr.� �.Cvt/.�+r�£ :.--= a 21.E/Z"VGR diS, �%�� ,P,r�.;. /.fir • �-.���s�.r ��i�s�i�%� �'`�o � �i�c.�,�/�i� '0�� 6/Ery .1.�,.�,�• s� ��rr�/j��// r� %J dl/ra.�i� v.!�/""`"".. q .. r �'�i�,asaiefi�-.s'i,•� v /r ids •PE-ar���crf Reviewer/Inspector Name Reviewer/InspectorSignature: Date: x .74RT • �,cr� ; - -`,: _ ,s ,dr� i.� ,sxr ,e; �/� /� .�/l 1t��r• :�v.7.��i/.+S /y��G/�4�I� F✓� /'7,�j�✓IA'r!/f�G=!`' Af�//�iZGYT�.