NC0023906_Correspondence_20090320

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNIN`► COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0023906
Wilson — Hominy Creek WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Corresponderip
Owner Name Change
Return
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
March 20, 2009
This document is printed an reuse paper - ignore any
content on the re'rerse aside

[Fwd: [Fwd: Questionalbe Lab results]]
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Questionalbe Lab results]]
From: Vanessa Manuel <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:09:10 -0400
To: Debra Collins <[e-mail]>
geoc. 2-3 qotp
r6, 24c) sa.,.p 145qA
CC: Danny Smith <[e-mail]>, Monti Hassan <[e-mail]>, Pat
Donnelly <[e-mail]>, Jeff Poupart <[e-mail]>
Ms. Collins,
By copy of this email, I am notifying the appropriate Division staff who may be able to assist you with
your cyanide issue. Because the sampling was conducted for your LTMP, I have copied Monti Hassan
with our pretreatment program. To address the issue regarding how the cyanide sample was handled by
your contract lab, I have copied Pat Donnelly who is our Lab Certification Manager. And, I have copied
Danny Smith because his group is responsible for reviewing all permit related violations. The
information you provided will be considered in our review of any possible cyanide violations. Please
feel free to contact any of the appropriate staff with specific questions. Also, if I may be of further
assistance, please let me know.
-Vanessa Manuel
More on previous
Subject: Cyanide
From: "Debra Collins" <dhcollins(a,WILSONNC.ORG>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:17:38 -0400
To: <Jeff.PoupartPncmail.net>
Jeff,
R E : Quest1,'.3.-NcA ie_ Cide.frel tacQe_ d -
I did forget to give you some important information. This set of samples was our LTMP samples and there was
no Cyanide at the Influent, Primary, Secondary, BNR basin, or BPR Tank. We also collected another sample on
Friday of this same week(February 6) and it had no cyanide present either. Once again it is my professional
opinion that this Cyanide result is not of our Plant Effluent.
Debra H. Collins
Chemist,
City Of Wilson, WRF
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Vanessa E. WanueC Environmental Chemist
N.C. Division of Water Quality / Surface Water Protection Section
Eastern NPDES Program
919/807-6392
919/807-6495 (fax)
Vanessa. Manuet@nc nai(net
1 of 3
3/20/2009 12:10 PM

[Fwd: [Fwd: Questionalbe Lab results]] .
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records
law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Subject: [Fwd: Questionalbe Lab results]
From: Jeff Poupart <j [e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:19:53 -0400
To: Vanessa Manuel <[e-mail]>
Please look into this with RRO. Thanks
Subject: Questionalbe Lab results
From: "Debra Collins" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:10:26 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Good Afternoon Jeff,
I am hoping you can help me out with an issue that I am dealing with. I have received an outrageously high
Cyanide value from my contract lab for Cyanide. These are the events that took place
On February 4, 2009 the labs courier picked up a group of samples for various analysis to be performed. Of these
sample The City of Wilson Plant Effluent was analyzed for Cyanide. This sample was given the Work Order
number 0902-00296-004 and a result of 0.187 mg/L was reported.
Upon receipt of this report on 2/19/2009 I contacted the lab to question if the sample had been repeated and the
result confirmed, as that has been my instructions to the lab. If they get a hit on ANY sample being analyzed for
Cyanide or Mercury that it must be confirmed. The lab contact indicated to me that she would check and get
back to me. I did not hear from her so I contacted her back the next day at which time she said it had been and an
average of the results reported. She offered to repeat the sample and even though it was outside the required hold
time I told her to do so. I never heard back from her so I called her back. She at that time said that the lab's
owner was to have called me and that the sample had been repeated and the sample once again had a Cyanide
hit.
After giving some thought to the situation I contacted the labs owner with the intentions of asking to have a copy
of the lab data faxed to me but he was totally surprised and was not aware of what the results were and once
again he said he would check into it and get back with me which he did. I happened to be out of my office but he
had left a voice mail message telling me the sample was being reanalyzed at that time and he would get the
results to me by noon. He called me later that afternoon and to tell me that the result of the repeat analysis was
0.017 mg/L. I did question him about the better that 90% difference in the results at that time and he indicated to
me the difference could have been because of the hold time issue and the fact the sample had not been stored at
the required temperature between analysis. At that time, I asked for a copy of the lab data.
Upon receiving the lab data it was somewhat easy for me to determine some things which had happened. For
example the: there was a second result on the initial run of the sample. However, that result was simply a second
reading on the same distillate not an actual re -analysis. It is probable that is why she thought that it had been
repeated. When the lab owner checked into the repeat result he probably realized what had taken place and at
that time initiated the actual repeat of analysis. That is when I got the second result of 0.017 mg/L. I do find it
2 of 3 3/20/2009 12:10 PM

[Fwd: EFLal: Questionalbe Lab results]]
unrealistic that the sample had a difference of greater than 90%.
I had asked that the sample be returned to me just to make sure it did not get discarded until I have this problem
resolved. When I received the sample I noticed right away that a number had be written on the cap. I questioned
that number because the sample ID assigned to the sample was 0902-00296-004 but the number on the cap was
#5. When I questioned this, initially I was told that the number "5" on the cap was the slot on which the sample
was placed in the auto run. But, I had a copy of the lab data which showed the sample in question was in
slot"8". Once I brought this to their attention I was then told that they meant that 5 was the slot on the distillation
unit the sample was placed in.
The final issue that I am concerned about is the how the sample was treated upon receipt. We do our own
preservation of our samples at the time the sample is collected. It was written on the container the preservation
used as there is nowhere to note it on the COC. There is a place however noted (Lab use only) but there are no
notes in that area on the COC returned with the report indicating anything at the time of receipt other than the
sample was received at 4° ± 2°C. The lab does however include with their report a form completed by their lab
staff called "Sample Preservation Check In Sheet" On this sheet someone has circled NaOH and Other as
preservative for every sample submitted for Cyanide in the set(7 samples) and have written in the comment
section the words "Ascorbic Acid=CN." To me this would indicate that someone added both NaOH and ascorbic
acid to the samples. Our Effluent chlorine is read daily and the day the sample in question was collected(as is
usual) the Chlorine was <10 ug/L. If you add ascorbic acid to a sample that does not have chorine present it can
cause a false positive result. Of course they say they did not add ascorbic acid.
Jeff, we have available data on our plant Effluent as well as the plant influent dating back to July 2001 and have
always had <0.010 mg/L coming in ad going out of the plant. I am trying to do what I need to do have the
requirement to report this result. I know that I have to submit it on my DMR and I have every intention of doing
so but with a comment stating the result is pending further investigating. My question to you is who do I need to
contact to get help with this situation.
Respectfully,
Debra H. Collins
Chemist,
City Of Wilson, WRF
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
IFwd: Questionalbe Lab results].eml
Content -Encoding: 7bit
Questionalbe Lab results
Content -Encoding: 7bit
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Content -Type: message/rfc822
3 of 3 3/20/2009 12:10 PM