The reporter was the one who brought part of the issue to my attention. He had a report he wanted to know if it followed the correct protocols. There evidently had been some suggestion of some type of question concerning the quality landfill gas monitoring, possibly related to carbon emissions another reporter posed just prior to this. It was only a single page of results and a cover/comments page so there was nothing to determine. In checking into it the issue with accreditations came up.
The State of Louisiana had originally had the submission for Methods RM3-C and RM25-C (40CFR append. A) for landfill gas analysis in early 2007. They had issued a certificate of accreditation in July of that year listing on RM25-C and listing the analytes for RM3-C under that method, which is not possible due to the differences in columns, detectors, and procedures. It took some digging to find this as the NELAP site does not list methods/analytes, the state site did not list the methods/analytes, and the lab site did not list the Louisiana accreditation at all. Once the certificate was finally found it raised the question of whether there was a valid accreditation, especially given the cover letter sent by the State of Louisiana with the certificates stating no methods/analytes were accredited unless they were listed on the certificate even if they were applied for by the laboratory. It all seemed fairly cut and dried until the state was questioned about the issue. They determined they made a mistake by not including the correct methods and analytes as their corrective actions had all been met at the time.
They reissued the previous certificate in October of this year with the correct methods/analytes backdated to 2007. They claimed that is the required action by their regulations under the NELAP program. The whole official document aspect requirement seemed to be ignored in favor of pretending it did not make any difference.
No EPA regulations were changed, in fact the regulations for the RM25-C allow only one column set which would preclude any modification to try to include the second method.
I just recently contacted the reporter to give him copies of the correspondence between myself and the State of Louisiana and the attorneys for the lab, which decided my questioning of their accreditation was a slander against their reputation. That aspect has been resolved but it raised some legal questions concering the accreditation process and program.