#5029_09_2012_FINAL

INSPECTION REPORT ROUTING SHEET
To be attached to all inspection reports in-house only.
Laboratory Cert. #: 5029
Laboratory Name: Corning, Inc.
Inspection Type: Field Maintenance
Inspector Name(s): Jason Smith
Inspection Date: September 12, 2012
Date Report Completed: October 11 2012
Date Forwarded to Reviewer: October 11 2012
Reviewed by: Jeffrey R. Adams
Date Review Completed: October 11, 2012
Cover Letter to use: ❑ Insp. Initial ❑ Insp. Reg.
❑ Insp. No Finding ❑ Insp. CP
® Corrected
Unit Supervisor: Gary Francies
Date Received: 10/11/12
Date Forwarded to Linda: 10/16/2012
Date Mailed: w t la

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
5029
Mr. Tim Haley
Corning, Inc.
14556 Hwy. 601 S.
Midland, NC 28107
O
� ♦.NCDENR
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P. E.
Director
October 16, 2012
Dee Freeman
Secretary
SUBJECT: North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater Laboratory Certification (NC WW/GW LC)
Maintenance Inspection
Dear Mr. Haley:
Enclosed is a report for the inspection performed on September 12, 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,
GZ2�
Gary Francies
Certification Unit Supervisor
Laboratory Section
CC: Jason Smith
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: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] One
Internet: www.dwgiab.org NorthCarofina
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer Natu-paliff

On -Site Inspection Report
LABORATORY NAME:
NPDES PERMIT #:
ADDRESS:
CERTIFICATE #:
DATE OF INSPECTION:
TYPE OF INSPECTION:
AUDITOR(S):
LOCAL PERSON(S) CONTACTED:
INTRODUCTION:
Corning, Inc.
NCO086169
14556 Hwy. 601 S.
Midland, NC 28107
5029
September 12, 2012
Field Maintenance
Jason Smith
Tim Haley, Sheila Smith, Damien Cantrell, and William Reynolds
This laboratory was inspected by a representative of the North Carolina Wastewater/Groundwater
Laboratory Certification (NC WW/GW LC) program to verify its compliance with the requirements of 15A
NCAC 2H .0800 for the analysis of environmental samples.
The facility has all the equipment necessary to perform the analyses. Benchsheets are thorough, well
designed, and easy to follow. Records are well organized and easy to retrieve. The staff has done a good
job of keeping up with almost all new laboratory certification policies and requirements. Their proactive
approach is appreciated.
Contracted analyses are performed by Cabarrus County Water & Sewer (Certification #177).
Current quality assurance policies for Field laboratories and approved procedures for the analysis of
the facility's currently certified parameters were provided at the time of the inspection.
III. FINDINGS REQUIREMENTS COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Proficiency Testing
Comment: The laboratory analyzes additional quality control (i.e. known standards) with Proficiency
Testing (PT) samples. The Proficiency Testing Requirements, February 20, 2012, Revision 1.2
document 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. They shall not be analyzed with additional quality control or replicated beyond what is routine
for environmental sample analysis. This requirement is a new policy that has been implemented by our
program since the last inspection. Notification of acceptable corrective action (i.e., known standards will
no longer be analyzed with PT's) was received by email on October 11, 2012. No further response is
necessary for this finding.
Comment: The laboratory was not documenting PT sample analyses in the same manner as
environmental samples. The Proficiency Testing Requirements, February 20, 2012, Revision 1.2.

Page 2
#5029 Corning, Inc.
document states: All PT sample analyses must be recorded in the daily analysis records as for any
environmental sample. This serves as the permanent laboratory record. This requirement is a new
policy that has been implemented by our program since the last inspection. Notification of acceptable
corrective action (i.e., PT results will be recorded on the standard benchsheet) was received by email
on October 11, 2012. No further response is necessary for this finding.
pH — Standard Methods 4500 H+ B-2000
Comment: Values were reported that exceed the method specified accuracy of 0.1 units. Standard
Methods, 4500 H+ B-2000, (6) states: By careful use of a laboratory pH meter with good electrodes, a
precision of ± 0.02 pH unit and an accuracy of ± 0.05 pH unit can be achieved. However, ± 0.1 pH unit
represents the limit of accuracy under normal conditions, especially for measurement of water and
poorly buffered solutions. For this reason, report pH values to the nearest 0.1 pH unit. Notification of
acceptable corrective action (i.e., pH results are now reported to the nearest 0.1 pH unit) was received
by email on October 11, 2012. No further response is necessary for this finding.
Total Residual Chlorine — Standard Methods 4500 Cl G-2000
Comment: The laboratory is not performing the annual curve verification properly. A linear regression
curve is prepared using the absorbance values obtained for each standard. The curve is evaluated based
upon the correlation coefficient and the concentration of each standard obtained from the curve. This
would be acceptable if sample concentrations were calculated from the absorbance using this curve.
However, the laboratory reports the sample concentration as obtained (in pg/L). In order to do this, the
laboratory must annually verify the factory stored curve that is used for sample analysis. The Approved
Procedure for Field Analysis of Total Residual Chlorine states: Annual Factory -set Curve Verification:
Analyze a water blank to zero the instrument and then analyze a series of five standards. The curve
verification must check 5 concentrations (not counting the blank) that bracket the range of the samples to
be analyzed. This type of curve verification must be performed at least every 12 months. The values
obtained must not vary by more than 10% of the known value for standard concentrations greater than or
equal to 50 ,ug/L and must not vary by more than 25% of the known value for standard concentrations
less than 50 pg/L. The overall correlation coefficient of the curve must be >_0.995. This curve verification
compares the Residual Chlorine value that is obtained for each standard to its true value in pg/L.
Notification of acceptable corrective action (i.e., the curve verification will be performed using the
concentration in ,ug/L) was received by email on October 11, 2012. No further response is necessary
for this finding.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the laboratory verify the internal calibration using the
following concentrations: 20, 40, 50, 200 and 400 ug/L.
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 Corning, Inc. (NPDES permit #NC0086169) for May, June, and July 2012. The following
error was noted:
Date
Parameter
Location
Contract Lab Data
Value on DMR
6/19/12
Total Suspended
Solids
Effluent
2.6 mg/L
<2.5 mg/L

Page 3
#5029 Corning, Inc.
In order to avoid questions of legality, it is recommended that you contact the appropriate Regional
Office for guidance as to whether an amended Discharge Monitoring Report will be required. A copy
of this report will be made available to the Regional Office.
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
Report reviewed by: Jeffrey R. Adams
Date: October 11, 2012
Date: October 11, 2012