NC0043176_Lab Certification_20050915

September 15, 2005
115
Mr. Donrie Dukes
Dunn Black River WWTP Lab.
P.O. Box 1065
Dunn, NC 28335
SUBJECT: Laboratory Certification Maintenance Inspection
Dear Mr. Dukes:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
OENR-FRO
i6 2005
DWG)
Enclosed is a report for the inspection performed on, September 2, 2005 by Mr. Norman Good.
Where deficiencies are cited in this report, a response is required as well as for all lettered comments
and/or recommendations. Within thirty days of receipt, please supply this office with a written item for
item description of how these deficiencies, comments and/or recommendations were corrected. If the
deficiencies cited in the enclosed report are not corrected, enforcement actions will be recommended.
For certification maintenance, your laboratory must continue tocarry out the requirements set forth in
15A NCAC 2H .0800.
Copies of the checklists completed during the inspectionmay 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 us at 919-733-
3908.
Sincerely,
James W. Meyer
Laboratory Section
Enclosure
cc: Norman Good
Fayetteville Regional Office
Laboratory Section
1623 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
4405 Reedy Creek Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet www.dwglab.org
_ NorthCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

On -Site Inspection Report
LABORATORY NAME: Dunn Black River WWTP Lab.
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1065
Dunn, NC 28335
CERTIFICATE NO: 115
DATE OF INSPECTION: 09/02/2005
TYPE OF INSPECTION: Maintenance
EVALUATOR: Norman L. Good
LOCAL PERSON(S) CONTACTED: Ms. Donrie Dukes, Ms. Jessica Tegue
I. INTRODUCTION:
This laboratory was inspected to verify its compliance withthe requirements of 15A NCAC 2H .0800 for
the analysis of environmental samples.
II. GENERAL COMMENTS:
The laboratory - is spacious and well equipped. All facilities and equipment are well maintained.
Documentation is well kept and most data looked good. Some further quality control procedures need
to be implemented. Benchsheets for each parameter were reviewed from January, April and June.
III. DEFICIENCIES, REQUIREMENTS, COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
General:
A. Comment: All daily balance checks were in order however the analytical balance had at some point
become out of level.
Recommendation: Adjust the height of each foot pad by turning the wheel in the appropriate direction.
Once the bubble is returned to a centered position within the ring the balance will be level and should
remain that way, unless it is moved or repositioned. At the time of the inspection a pieceof sponge like
material was observed under the rear of the balance. Presumably this was added in order to add
stability to the balance. Anti vibration materials are acceptable but must not cause the balance to
become unleveled. The balance must be mounted in a "Shock proof location:. Ref: 15A NCAC 2H
.0805 (a) (6) (D).
Coliform (Fecal - MF):
B. Comment: The laboratory is not performing consumables testing on media, pads or,filters.
Requirement: d. Use test for evaluation of reagent water, media, and membranes: When a new lot of
culture medium, membrane filters, or new source of reagent -grade wateris to be used, or at annual
testing of water, make comparison tests of the current lot in use (reference lot) against the new lot (test
lot). Ref: Standard Methods 18th Edition, Method 9222, page 9-7 3. D, B. 4. 1) and 2) and 9020, 3.4. 2)

Page 2
Comment: It was noticed that the 1995 version of our coliform counting guidance document was
posted on the laboratory wall. Some minor changes or additions to this, document have been made
over the years.
Recommendation: Although no specific instances of improper reporting were observed during the
inspection, the latest version of our guidance document is enclosed for your use. This document is
intended to assist in properly reporting coliform colony counts from multiple plates Please comment or
question as you find necessary.
AMMONIA:
C. Comment: Thelaboratory reported thatthe annual distillation study for this parameter has been
completed indicating that distillation is not necessary.
Requirement: In your case as a municipal discharger four samples (initially) distilled and undistilled
should be analyzed from each discharge.. Annually thereafter two samples a ,year from each effluent
must be reanalyzed. Please submit a copy of the original (4 sample) ammonia distillation study as well as
this years (two samples) annual study for comparison.
If the original information cannot be located, perform the/next test study on four samples per discharge.
Be sure to include sampling and analysis dates and times with the data presented. You should maintain
copies of all studies on file for 5 years and have them available for review upon request.
In cases of very low ammonia samples, spike each test sample near the midrange of the analytical curve
prior to analysis or distillation. Report spiked concentrations with your response.
It is acceptable for a commercial laboratory that is properly, certified for this parameter to perform these
studies using your effluent on your behalf.
BOD:
D. Comment: The benchsheets for this parameter were routinely in very good order. However, on a
few occasions portions of the benchsheet were not completely filled in. Missing information observed
included "time out", "temperature out" or "analyst". Omissions made seemed to be primarily in the
month of June, 2005.
Recommendation: Review benchsheets for completeness to be sure all required information has been
included: It may be advisable to add a place to initial the page once it has been checked.
CONDUCTIVITY:
E. Comment: The checklist indicated that the cell constant correction is made automatically and
checked annually.
Requirement:. Please submit a copy of the annual verification check.
F. Comment: The checklist indicated that the temperature adjustment had been checked against an
NIST traceable thermometer.
Requirement: Follow the procedure on the enclosed guidance document for checking the temperature
compensation device of the meter. Both routines on this page should be conducted annually for
temperature compensation and cell constant checks and the process documented.

Page 3
IV. PAPER TRAIL INVESTIGATION:
Paper trail investigation consisted of comparison of laboratory and field bench sheets to discharge
monitoring reports for January, April and June 2005. No errors in transcription or inconsistencies were
observed.
V. CONCLUSIONS:
Laboratory and plant staff contacted were very responsive and cooperative. Overall performance of
the lab based on observation and data review is very good. Correcting the comments and
implementing the requirements and recommendations included with this report will help this lab to
continue to produce quality data and meet certification requirements. Please respond to all lettered
comments.
Report prepared by: Norman L. Good Date: 09/08/2005

March 25, 2003
FECAL COLIFORM REPORTING
The following criteria are to be used in obtaining and reporting fecal coliform data: -
Standard Methods suggests analyzing samples by filtering three different volumes (diluted or undiluted) depending on the
bacterial density. Each laboratory must filter multiple dilutions of the sample in order to obtain plates containing 20 to 60 fecal coliform
colonies. It is strongly recommended that sampling containers of at least 250 ml be used in order to collect sufficient volume to meet
method criteria. See Standard Methods 18th, 19ut or 20th Edition 9222D, and EPA Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the
Environment Part IIC and Part IIIC. The rules for calculating values are given in Standard Methods 9222 D.3, 9222 B.6, and EPA Micro
Methods, Part IIC 3.6 and Part IIIC 2.7. The following is a compilation of these rules to be used in calculating the fecal coliform count
per 100 ml of sample for compliance with NC/ENR/DWQ Laboratory Certification.
ALL RESULTS MUST BE REPORTED IN WHOLE NUMBERS.
(1)
Countable Membranes with 20-60 Blue Colonies: Calculate the fecal coliform results from membrane filters within the ideal
counting range of 20-60 blue colonies using the general. formula:
Number of colonies counted x 100 = Fecal coliform colonies per 100 ml
volume of sample filtered in ml
If more than one filter has a count in the acceptable range, calculate the values in counts/100 ml and average.
If a 100 ml sample is analyzed and the counts are Tess than 60 colonies: reportthe total number of colonies present on the
100m1 sample. If zero counts are obtained: report as <1/100 ml. (This is a whole volume sample)
(2) Countable Membranes with Tess than 20 Blue Colonies: If all counts are below the lower limit (20) of the ideal counting range:
(a) Select the count most nearly acceptable and compute the count using the general formula. Report the count as an
Estimated Count per 100 ml: or
(b) Total the counts on all filters and report as number per 100 ml. For example if 50, 25, and 10 ml portions were examined and
counts were 15, 6, and 0 coliform colonies respectively, calculate results as follows and report the count as 25 colonies per 100
(3)
ml.
(15 + 6 + 0) counts x 100 = 25 colonies per 100 ml
50+25+10ml
Membranes with No Colonies: If counts from all filters are zero, report the count for the fecal coliform as a less than (<) value.
Calculate the number of colonies per 100 ml that would have been reported if there had been one colony on the filter
representing the largest filtration volume. For example, sample volumes of 25, 10 and 2 ml produced colony counts of 0, 0 and
0, respectively. The count would be reported as <4 colonies per 100 ml.
<1 counts x 100 = <4 colonies per 100 ml
25 ml
(4) Countable Membranes with more than 60 Colonies: If all filter counts are above the upper limit (60), but countable, calculate
the count from the smallest volume filtered and report as a greater than (>) value. For example, if 10, 5, and 1 ml portions of
samples were examined and counts were TNTC, 310, and 95 coliform colonies respectively, calculate results as follows and
report the count as >9500 colonies/100 ml.
>95 counts x 100 = >9500 colonies per 100 ml
1 ml
Uncountable Membranes: For uncountable filters with more than 60 colonies or "Too numerous to Count" (TNTC), use 60
colonies as the basis of calculation with the smallest filtration volume and report as a greater than value. For example, sample
volumes of 10, 1.0 and 0.1 ml all produced too many colonies to show separated colonies and the laboratory bench sheet
showed TNTC. The count would be reported as >60,000 colonies per 100 ml.
(5)
(6)
(7)
>60 counts x 100 = >60,000 colonies per 100 ml
0.1 ml
If the Filters for a sample have counts of both >60 and <20, but none in the 20-60 range: Use all countable filters and calculate
as in (2) (b) above.
Abnormalities: The above rules are to be used except when an abnormality occurs in the analysis of a sample. When
abnormalities occur, analysts must use their best judgment in selecting the proper value to report.
Geometric Mean: Find the log of the values and add them together and then average. Get the antilog. Anything with a less than number
is a 1. If greater than number, use the absolute number. °

Annual Verification of the Temperature Compensation (ATC) of the Conductivity Meter
Use a 0.01 M KCL standard = 1412 umhos/cm
1. Read the 1412 umhos/cm standard at a temperature lower that 25° C (preferably close to
the temperature samples are routinely analyzed at). Adjust for the temperature as normal.
Should read 1412 umhos/cm.
2. Bring the standard to 25° C and reread without making any ,adjustments. At 25° C, and
without adjusting, the standard should read 1412 umhos/cm.
If it does the temperature adjustment of the meter is correct.
Annual Verification of the Cell Constant Adjustment of the Conductivity Meter
Dilute the 0.01 M (1412 umhos/cm) standard to 0.005M (50% dilution) - should read 718
µmhos/cm
1. ' Read the 0.01 M (1413 umhos/cm standard) and record the results. Set the temperature
compensation dial at 0.0191 C-1, (if you have one) with the probe in the 1412 umhos/cm
standard, adjust the meter to read 1412 umhos/cm.
2.. Read the 718 umhos/cm standard without adjusting the cell constant, calculate the cell
constant.
Cell Constant = Specific conductance standard
Conductance Reading
Example:
Cell Constant = 718 = 1.04 pmhos/cm
689
3. Using the unadjusted reading for. the 0.01 M standard (1412 umhos/cm), apply the 'cell
constant.
Example: 1355 X 1.04 = 1409 umhos/cm
Standard is really reading 1409 umhos/cm
If the calculated cell constant produces a real reading at, or very near, the adjusted cell constant,
the cell constant is adjusting properly.
COMMENT: Above ± 4% variance in the standards the cell constant will change enough to warrant a
calculation adjustment. The cell constant can range from 0.8 to 1.2 and be within an acceptable operating
range of the instrument. Ref: YSI Incorporated Memo of 07/31/2001, Patrick Huggins,EPG Applications
Specialist

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY AUDIT
To improve our service to you and to maintain the quality of the laboratory inspection process, we request that you
complete the following evaluation. Since your comments are important to us, please use the reverse side of this form to
discuss issues not addressed in the items listed below. Please return this form within five (5) days of this audit.
Completing and returning this form is voluntary
Please return this evaluation to:
James W. Meyer
DENR/DWQ Chemistry Laboratory
1623 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1623
Certification Officer's Name: Norm Good
Inspection Date: September 2, 2005
Please evaluate the following using a 10 point scale with 1= poor and 10= excellent
- ITEM `
Disagree -,,Neutral
123
456
Agree
78910
1. The certification officer contacted you in advance for your audit and answered
your questions.
2. The certification officer arrived on time and at the agreed place.
3. The certification officer's dress and appearance were professional and
business like.
4. The certification officer's questions and comments were pertinent to laboratory
operations and inspection.
5. The certification officer interacted with your staff in a courteous and
professional manner.
6. The audit results were summarized in an exit interview following the survey.
7. Correcting the deficiencies noted in the audit results will improve your
laboratory's operations and data quality.
8. The certification officer's comments have been/will be helpful to your
laboratory staff and laboratory operations.
9. The N.C. Environmental Laboratory Certification Program is beneficial to your
laboratory's analytical performance.
ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10 (WITH 10 = EXCELLENT) PLEASE RATE NORTH CAROLINA'S ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10 (WITH 10 = EXCELLENT) PLEASE RATE your certification officer
Laboratory Name Dunn Black River WWTP Lab
Date:
Signature( Optional)
PLEASE USE.THE BACK OF THIS FORM FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING THIS
PROGRAM OR THE CERTIFICATION OFFICER.

October 19, 2005
115
Ms. Donrie Dukes
Dunn Black River WWTP Lab
PO Box 1065
Dunn, NC 28335
Dear Ms. Dukes:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
P,FGEGVEf
OCT 21 2005
•
pc\IR-F`PI LE
Your letter concerning corrective actions for your analytical procedures has been reviewed. The quality control
measure taken in reference to the comments cited in the September .15, 2005 inspection report are acceptable as
proposed. However, there was no response in your letter to Comment F regarding the annual check on the temperature
compensation device on the conductivity meter. Please submit the results of the test as described on the guidance
document included with the original inspection report.
This report does not attempt to comprehensively address all certification requirements prescribed in the North Carolina
Administrative Code (15A NCAC 2H .0800), promulgated methods, and applicable Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part
136). It is the responsibility of the certified laboratory to address any required changes in Wastewater/Groundwater
Laboratory Certification application information, and to correct the Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures and the
Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual when requirements of the above cited codes are not in compliance.
Thank you again for your cooperation during the inspection. Contact us at 919, 733-3908 ex. 241, if you have any questions
or need additional information regarding our requirements.
Sincerely,
Norman L. Good
Laboratory Section
Enclosure
cc: James W. Meyer
Fayetteville Regional Office
Laboratory Section
1623 Mail Service Center; Raleigh,. NC 27699-1623
4405 Reedy Creek Road; Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: www.dwglab.org
thCarolina
atura!!j
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

DWQ / FRO
FYI and Pass Along
TO:
[ ] Ken Averitte
[]'Belinda Henson
Mike Lawyer
[--j'Dale Lopez
L]-Mark Brantley
U.—Hen Register
[ ]Ri�
[1—]�iad Turlington ✓
[2--rliughie White
Staff Report Recommendations [ ]
Complaint Investigation
Ni Spill / ER Follow-up
Please Complete by
YPlease Investigate by
Last Person, Please File
Return to
Return to Belinda Henson