#5097_05_2012_FINAL

INSPECTION REPORT ROUTING SHEET
To be attached to all inspection reports in-house only.
Laboratory Cert. #.
Laboratory Name:
Inspection Type:
Inspector Name(s):
Inspection Date:
Date Report Completed:
Date Forwarded to Reviewer:
Reviewed by:
Date Review Completed:
5097
Spindale WWTP
Field Maintenance
Jason Smith & Chet Whiting
May 22, 2012
June 21, 2012
June 21 2012
Chet Whiting
July 3, 2012
Cover Letter to use: _ Insp. Initial _ Insp. Reg. _ Insp. No Finding _ Insp. CP X Corrected
Unit Supervisor: Gary Francies
Date Received: 7/3/2012
Date Forwarded to Linda: 7/9/2012
Date Mailed: t

XNX
.,- awA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
5097
Mr. Bill Hodge
Spindale WWTP
P.O. Box 186
Spindale, NC 28160
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P. E.
Director
July 10, 2012
Dee Freeman
Secretary
SUBJECT: North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification (NC WW/GW LC)
Maintenance Inspection
Dear Mr. Hodge:
Enclosed is a report for the inspection performed on May 22, 2012 by Jason Smith. Since the
finding(s) cited during the inspection were all corrected prior to the completion of the enclosed
report, a response is not required. The staff is commended for taking the initiative in correcting
the findings in such a timely manner. For certification maintenance, your laboratory must
continue to carry out the requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 2H .0800.
Copies of the checklists completed during the inspection may be requested from this office.
Thank you for your cooperation during the inspection. If you wish to obtain an electronic copy of
this report by electronic mail, or if you have questions or need additional information please
contact me at 828-296-4677.
Sincerely,
Gary Francies
Certification Unit Supervisor
Laboratory Section
CC: Master File
Jason Smith
DENR DWO Laboratory Section NC Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification Branch
1623 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623
Location: 4405 Reedy Creek Road. Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-6445
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.dwqlab.org
.One
orihCarolina
Gi 'miff
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

On -Site Inspection Report
LABORATORY NAME: Spindale WWTP
NPDES PERMIT #: NCO020664
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 186
Spindale, NC 28160
CERTIFICATE #: 5097
DATE OF INSPECTION: May 22, 2012
TYPE OF INSPECTION: Field Maintenance
AUDITOR(S): Jason Smith and Chet Whiting
LOCAL PERSON(S) CONTACTED: Bill Hodge, Lance Mundy, and Tom Bernard
I. INTRODUCTION:
This laboratory was inspected to verify its compliance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0800 for the
analysis of environmental samples.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS:
The laboratory has all the equipment necessary to perform the analyses and records are well organized and
easy to retrieve. The requirements associated with Findings A, B, C, and D are new policies that have been
implemented by our program since the last inspection.
III. FINDINGS REQUIREMENTS COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Documentation
Comment: The laboratory needed to increase the documentation of purchased chemicals and reagents.
The Quality Assurance Policies for Field Laboratories document states: All chemicals, reagents, standards and
consumables used by the laboratory must have the following information documented: Date Received, Date
Opened (in use), Vendor, Lot Number, and Expiration Date. A system (e.g., traceable identifiers) must be in
place that links standard/reagent preparation information to analytical batches in which the solutions are used.
Documentation of solution preparation must include the analyst's initials, date of preparation, the volume or
weight of standard(s) used, the solvent and final volume of the solution. This information as well as the vendor
and/or manufacturer, lot number, and expiration date must be retained for chemicals, reagents, standards and
consumables used for a period of five years. Consumable materials such as pH buffers and lots of pre -made
standards are included in this requirement. The requirement associated with this Finding is a new policy that
has been implemented by our program since the last inspection. Notification of acceptable corrective action
(i.e., an acceptable traceability log provided to the laboratory was put in use on June 11, 2012) was received
by email on June 21, 2012. No further response is necessary for this finding.
Comment: Error corrections were not dated when performed. The Quality Assurance Policies for Field
Laboratories document states: All documentation errors must be corrected by drawing a single line through the
error so that the original entry remains legible. Entries shall not be obliterated by erasures or markings. Wite-
Out®, correction tape or similar products designed to obliterate documentation are not to be used. Write the
correction adjacent to the error. The correction must be initialed by the responsible individual and the date of
change documented. All data and log entries must be written in indelible ink. Pencil entries are not acceptable.
The requirement associated with this Finding is a new policy that has been implemented by our program since

Page 2
#5097 Spindale WWTP
the last inspection. Notification of acceptable corrective action (i.e., error corrections are now dated) was
received by email on June 21, 2012. No further response is necessary for this finding.
Proficiency Testing
Comment: The laboratory was not documenting Proficiency Testing (PT) sample analyses in the same
manner as environmental samples (i.e., on a benchsheet). The Quality Assurance Policies for Field
Laboratories document states: The analysis of PT samples is designed to evaluate the entire process used
to routinely report environmental analytical results. Therefore, PT samples must be analyzed and the
process documented in the same manner as environmental samples. The requirement associated with this
Finding is a new policy that has been implemented by our program since the last inspection. Notification of
acceptable corrective action (i.e., the analysis of PT samples will now be documented on a benchsheet)
was received by email on June 21, 2012. No further response is necessary for this finding.
Comment: PT samples were not analyzed in the same manner as environmental samples. Known
concentration samples were analyzed along with the PT sample as extra quality control. The Proficiency
Testing Requirements document, February 20, 2012, Revision 1.2 states: Laboratories shall conduct
proficiency tests in accordance with their routine testing, calibration and reporting procedures, unless otherwise
specified in the instructions supplied by the PT provider. This means that they are to be logged in and analyzed
using the same staff, sample tracking systems, standard operating procedures including the same equipment,
reagents, calibration techniques, analytical methods and preparatory techniques such as digestions,
distillations and extractions. They shall not be analyzed with additional quality control or replicated beyond
what is routine for environmental sample analysis. Results from multiple analyses (when this is the routine
procedure) must be calculated in the same manner as routine environmental samples. The same quality
control acceptance criteria must also be used. The requirement associated with this Finding is a new policy
that has been implemented by our program since the last inspection. Notification of acceptable corrective
action (i.e., known samples will no longer be analyzed with the PT samples) was received by email on June
21, 2012. No further response is necessary for this finding.
Recommendation: Known concentration samples are recommended as part of the troubleshooting process
following unacceptable PT sample results.
IV. PAPER TRAIL INVESTIGATION:
The paper trail consisted of comparing field testing records and contract lab reports to Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs) submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Data were reviewed for Spindale
WWTP (NPDES permit #NC0020664) for February, March, and April, 2102. No transcription errors were
detected. The facility appears to be doing a good job of accurately transcribing data.
V. CONCLUSIONS:
All findings noted during the inspection were adequately addressed prior to the completion of this report.
The inspector would like to thank the staff for its assistance during the inspection and data review process. No
response is required.
Report prepared by: Jason Smith Date: June 21, 2012
Report reviewed by: Chet Whiting Date: July 3, 2012