#5540 - 04 - 2011 - FINAL

INSPECTION REPORT ROUTING SHEET
To be attached to all inspection reports in-house only.
Laboratory Cert. #:
5540
Laboratory Name:
INENCO Inc.
Inspection Type:
Field Commercial Maintenance
Inspector Name(s):
Chet Whiting
Inspection Date:
April 30, 2011
Date Report Completed:
May 4, 2011
Date Forwarded to Reviewer: May 6, 2011
Reviewed by:
Todd Crawford
Date Review Completed:
May 6, 2011
Cover Letter to use:
Insp. Initial — Insp. Reg. Insp. No Finding Insp. CP X Corrected
Unit Supervisor:
Gary Francis
Date Received:
5/1112011
Date Forwarded to Alberta:
aeJ__
Date Mailed:
5

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
5540
Mr, James Willard
INENCO, Inc.
132 W. Statesville Ave.
Mooresville, NC 28115
NCDEN
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
May 11, 2011
SUBJECT: North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification {NC WW/GW LC}
Maintenance Inspection
Dear Mr. Willard:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Enclosed is a report for the inspection performed on April 29, 2011 by chet Whiting. No findings are cited in this
report, a response is not required. We appreciate the fine job you and your staff are doing. As a certification
requirement, 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 email, or if you have
questions or need additional information please contact me at 828-296-4677.
Sincerely,
Gary Francies
Unit Supervisor
Laboratory Section
CC Chet Whiting
Gary Francies
Master File
DENR DWQ 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; 919-733-39081 FAX: [phone]
Intemet: www.dwglab.org
An Equal Opportunity l Affinnative Action Employer Customer Service:1-877-623-6748 www.ncwaterquality.org
One
NofthCarolina

CERTIFICATE #:
DATE OF INSPECTION:
INENCO Inc.
132 W. Statesville Ave.
Mooresville, NC 28115
5540
April 29, 2011
Field Commercial Maintenance
Chet Whiting
James Willard
This laboratory was inspected to verify its compliance with the requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0800 for
the analysis of environmental samples.
The facility is neat and well organized and has all the equipment necessary to perform the analyses.
13enchsheets are well designed, easy to follow and concise. Records are well organized and easy to
retrieve.
Documentation
Comment: A few instances were observed where error corrections were not performed properly.
Quality Assurance Policies for Field Laboratories 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. Notification of acceptable
corrective action was received by e-mail on 5/5/2011 stating that the laboratory reviewed the Quality
Assurance Policies for Field Laboratories (NC WW/GW LC Policy 10/22/2010) with all technicians and
focused on instructing all technicians on the proper procedure for error corrections policies. No
further response is necessary for this finding.
Comment: The sample identification (Vendor) was not documented for PT's at the time of the
inspection. Quality Assurance Policies for Field Laboratories 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. Notification of acceptable corrective action was received in an e-mail on
5/5/2011, stating that documentation procedures were altered so that information about the
Performance Evaluation vendor and testing will be logged with the sample testing information. This
requirement is a new policy that has been implemented by our program since the last inspection. No
further response is necessary for this finding.

Page 2
#5540 INENCO Inc.
pH — Standard Methods, 181h Edition, 4500 H+ B
Comment: At the time of the inspection, units of measure were documented for calibration but not for
analytical results. The North Carolina Administrative Code, 15A NCAC 2H .0805 (g) (1) states: Data
pertinent to each analysis must be maintained for five years. Certified Data must consist of date
collected, time collected, sample site, sample collector, and sample analysis time. The field
benchsheets must provide a space for the signature or initials of the analyst, and proper units of
measure for all anal. The bench sheet was corrected during the inspection with a footnote to
indicate that all pH results are in Standard Units. No further response is necessary for this finding.
Comment: The temperature sensing device on the pH meter had not been calibrated against an MIST
certified or traceable thermometer annually (every 12 months) and the correction was not posted.
Technical Assistance for Field Analysis of pH states: All temperature sensing devices'on meters must
be calibrated against a NIST certified or NIST traceable thermometer annually (every 12 months) and
proper corrections made and documented. The meter reading must be less than 1°C from the NIST
certified reading to be acceptable. Document the serial number and manufacturer of the NIST
thermometer that was used in the comparison. Document any correction that applies (even if zero)) on
both the meter and on a separate sheet to be filed. Notification of acceptable corrective action was
received by e-mail on 5/5/2011 Temperature sensor calibration checks were submitted.. No further
response is necessary for this finding.
No paper trail was conducted.
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: Chet Whiting Date: May 4, 2011
Report reviewed by: Todd Crawford Date: May 6, 2011