NC0004618_Lab Inspection_20031006

1 T y 7 2003
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
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
10/6/2003
144
Mr. Cleavland Collins
Alamac American Knits LLC
P.O. Box 1347
1885 Alamac Road
Lumberton, NC 28359-1347
SUBJECT: Laboratory Certification Maintenance Inspection
Dear Mr. Collins:
Enclosed is a report .for the inspection performed on September 22, 2003 by Mr.
Frederick L. Bone and Ms. Edith Henderson. 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 to carry out
the requirements set forth in 15A NCAC for 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 us at 919-733-3908.
Sincerely,
9'aifrytg4 0,11
James W. Meyer
Laboratory Section
Enclosure
cc: Frederick L. Bone
Fayetteville Regional Office
japqrA
N. C. Division of Water Quality Laboratory Section 1623 Mail Service Center ' Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1623 [phone]
FAX: [phone]

On -Site Inspection Report
LABORATORY NAME: Alamac Knit Fabrics Wastewater Lab
ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 1347
1885 Alamac Road
Lumberton, NC 28539
CERTIFICATE NO: 144
DATE OF INSPECTION: September 22, 2003
TYPE OF INSPECTION: Maintenance
EVALUATOR: Frederick L. Bone and Edith Henderson
LOCAL PERSON(S) CONTACTED: Cleveland Collins
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 is spacious and well equipped. All facilities and equipment are well maintained. Records
are well kept and most data looked good. Some further quality control procedures need to be
implemented.
III. DEFICIENCIES, RECOMMENDATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, AND COMMENTS:
Total Suspended Solids:
A. COMMENT: The laboratory is analyzing TSS sample volumes in excess of 1000 ml in order to
achieve greater than 1 mg residual weight on each filter. The laboratory occasionally analyzes as much
as 2250 ml of sample.
RECOMMENDATION: The largest volume that the laboratory would have to analyze is 1000m1. If 1 mg
of residue is not obtained using a 1000 ml volume, the laboratory may report <1.0 mg/L without
analyzing any additional sample volume.
BOD:
B. COMMENT: The laboratory is reporting values that are less. than the lower reporting limit of the
method for BOD.
REQUIREMENT: For BOD the lower reporting limit of the method is 2.0 mg/L based on the
requirement that samples use at least 2.0 mg/L of DO uptake after 5 days. Dilutions that result in a
residual DO of at least 1 mg/L and a DO uptake of at least 2 mg/L after 5 d incubation produce the
most reliable results. Make several dilutions of a prepared sample to obtain DO uptake in this range.
Ref: Standard Methods, 18th Edition. 5210B. (4)(F) p. 5-4.
C. COMMENT: The laboratory does not adjust the lower reporting limit to reflect the dilution factor
resulting from the fact that the maximum volume analyzed by the laboratory is 250m1.

Page 2
REQUIREMENT/RECOMMENDATION: It is strongly recommended that the laboratory analyze a
whole sample volume of 300 ml. This will allow the laboratory to report to a lower reporting limit of <2
mg/L. If the laboratory continues to analyze a 250 ml sample volume, the lower limit of detection would
have to be elevated to <2.4 mg/L.
IV. PAPER TRAIL INVESTIGATION:
This consisted of comparing data reported on DMR's submitted to this Division with the values obtained
on laboratory bench worksheets. Data reviewed for the months of January, March, and July 2003
indicated no problems in proper data reporting.
V. CONCLUSIONS:
Correcting the above comments and implementing the recommendations will help the laboratory to
produce quality data and meet certification requirements.
Please respond to all lettered Comments cited in this report.
Report prepared by: Frederick L. Bone Date: September 22, 2003