Document v45YzVYvKJJE9Lw5GpZyXXYm

ICHEMICALS f INTEROFFICE / LAKE CHARLES TO FROM B. Peard M. Wood i jy DATE May 14, 1984 SUBJECT EPA Inspection Report for 2/28 and 2/28/84 Following are comments on the Lab Deficiencies noted in the Inspection Report and the corrective action taken. I have also prepared a summary of the EPA and PPG results on the samples. You may wish to file this with the Inspection Report that I am returning to you. "~* 1 2 3 4 Lab Deficiencies 1. "Anal, methods used are not properly referenced for all parameters." Comment: Corrected - see H.J. Hoenes's memo 3-21-84. 2. "QA results are kept in lab worksheets, but they are not compiled or charted to determine quality control trends." Comment: Corrected - See above; LL-242 not complete but data being generated for charts. ~ 3. "Plastic bottles are used for compositing samples for total chlorinated hydrocarbons on outfalls 010, 018, and 118, instead of glass." Comment: Containers ordered 3-20-84 have not been received. Vendor is~to~ship 5-10-1T4. 4. "Spiked samples not regularly analyzed (10%) for all required parameters." Comment: Corrected - see H.J. Hoenes's memo 3-21-84 MW/ce cc: W.H. Cooper H.J. Hoenes Attachment 023207 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF PPG/HOUSTON EPA LAB DATA (mg/L) Outfall 018 BOD s TOC TSS Total ClHyd Outfall 118 BOD s TOC TSS Total ClHyd Outfall 010 Cr Total ClHyd Outfall 111 Hg Outfall Oil Hg Outfall 017 TSS Pb Outfall 019 TSS PPG EPA 7.2 8.8 18 0.15 5 1A 20 0.36* (excluding bromo and bromo/chloro cpds; Inappropriate parameter 263 63 28.3 165 Not reportable due to method interferences preventing the obtaining of reliable value. 167 19. A* <0.005 9.0 <0.02 5.7 0.002 0.0012 0.009 1 0.003 0.0100 13 <0.030 58 122 * See attached memo from Houston EPA Lab; also, they referenced wrong method and did not report anal. date. o28