"I didn't feel this old before the ICR!"
ICR Update
Jim Walasek, Editor
Technical Support Center
January 1998
Happy New Year!
ICR Update ISSUe Number 8 - This information sheet, the ICR Update, is
the eighth one to be issued by the Technical Support Center (TSC) of the Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW). Future issues will be distributed as needed to maintain
information flow related to the ICR.
Correction/Acknowledgment - in the last ICR update (NO. ?> i failed to '
mention the fine presentation by the Phoenix Water Services Department in the "ICR
Monitoring - Full Steam Ahead" session at the AWWA WQTC conference. Sorry. Janet
Kuefler (EPA Region 5), talked about strategies for implementing the ICR Rule and how the
utility's staff worked together to optimize sampling and analytical procedures. Ramesh
Narasimhan discussed the usefulness of the ICR data for other programs in which the utility is
involved. TSC is proud to acknowledge the cooperation of the Phoenix Water Services
Department in this outreach activity. Keep up the good work!
ICR FED Delayed - When EPA announced that the data collection effort would
begin in July 1997, it was expected that ICR FED (the ICR federal Database System is the
computer system which receives and processes the data utilities and laboratories submit to EPA)
would be ready to accept utility monthly reporting diskettes as soon as they were submitted.
Unfortunately, problems with the validation process have appeared which, if left uncorrected,
would result in erroneously rejecting valid data. Therefore, the ICR implementation team
believes that proceeding with uploading and validating water utility data would be
counterproductive until the errors in the QC validation process are corrected.
We expect to begin uploading and validating data early this year. The impact of the delay
will be that you will not receive the first few months' validation reports from the system on the
original schedule. We do not, however, expect the startup delay to have an impact on making the
-------
first 6 months of data publicly available in December 1998. Of course, the startup delay does
not impact the schedule of sending monthly diskettes to EPA. Keep sending them in monthly.
EPA regrets the delay in availability of validation processing and recommends that each
water system continue to carefully review data entered into the Water Utility software to verify
that the reports contain the correct information. The EPA implementation team and its
contractors are working very hard to fix the problems and get the validation system operational
as soon as possible. Stay tuned for further developments.
Speaking Of Monthly RepOrtS... - From time-to-time we still receive
ICR monthly reporting package diskettes (utility monthly sampling results and laboratory QC
data) here at TSC in Cincinnati. The disks should be sent to:
USEPA (ICR4600)
ICR Data Center - Attn: Ed Cottrill
Room 1111 East Tower
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
If you have already sent a diskette to TSC in Cincinnati, not to worry, it has been forwarded
to the proper address.
13.2 Bllg - We know that the B-2 (stealth bomber variety) has plenty of bugs, like not
being able to fly undetected in heavy rain, but I'm talking about the bugs in the ICR B.2 report
(Monthly Plant Parameters).
We were recently made aware of a problem in the B.2 report where the value for Sludge
Production had the wrong units associated with it. For example, if the Installed Sludge Handling
Capacity was entered into the Initial Sampling Plan (ISP) as 1,000,000 GPD, but the Sludge
Production for the month was entered into the Monthly Sampling Plan (copied over from the
ISP) as 100 DTD (dry tons per day), then the sludge production for the month would be printed
out as 100 GPD. Fortunately, the units will be correct in the data transfer diskette which is
uploaded to the mainframe. The problem is only in the printed B.2 report. Since we will
probably not be able to fix this bug in a timely manner (i.e., before the end of the sampling phase
of the ICR), one way to defeat (squash) the bug is to use consistent units in both the ISP and the
Monthly Sampling Plan (if possible).
SO What are We going tO dO... with allthis ICR data? -As you collect all
the data required in the ICR, you are probably wondering how this data will be used. Right?
EPA developed a draft ICR data analysis plan for both microbial contaminants and DBPs. On
November 20-21,1997, EPA held a stakeholders' meeting to discuss the plan and to get
feedback from the stakeholders. Three technical workgroups (TWGs - D/DBPs, microbial and
modeling TWGs) were created to review the draft plan and ensure that all issues related to data
-------
analysis are addressed. Along with EPA staff, there are volunteers from many different
organizations, such as AWWA, utilities and others, that will participate in these TWGs. Their
task is to work jointly on developing a detailed data analysis plan by April 1998. These TWGs
are guided by a steering committee that will work with theTWGs to prepare for the design of a
software package that will handle data analysis. As the TWGs meet in the near future, we will
keep you informed of the progress of this endeavor through ^the ICR Update.
ICR Chemistry Laboratory Approval- AS of the end of
November, there were 383 laboratories approved to perform chemical analyses for the ICR.
These consisted of 59 commercial labs, 305 utility labs, 15 state labs and four other (university
or federal). As you know, approvals are issued on a method/analyte group basis. As of
November 30, 1997, 4273 approvals were in effect These consisted of 466 approvals for DBF
analyses, 443 approvals for surrogate analyses (TOC, UV, TOX, and Br), and 3364 approvals for
water quality parameters.
In order to maintain lab approval, labs must successfully participate in ICR chemistry PE
studies. Failure to pass two consecutive studies results in loss of approval for the failed
method/analyte group. Twenty-nine laboratories were unsuccessful in both PE 5 and 5M (make-
up) and, as a result, they lost approval for a total of 41 methods/analyte groups. Almost half of
these cases were the result of labs failing to report PE data.
In addition to the above disapproval decisions, TSC also issued reapprovals to four
laboratories that had lost approval during the previous PE study, and five labs requested their
approval be withdrawn for 20 methods/analyte groups. Approval/disapproval letters were mailed
on November 26,1997.
Required Chemistry PE Study - The third of the six required chemistry
PE studies (PE 6) is now underway. The study includes the following parameters: THMs,
HAAs, HANs, HKs, CH, TOC, TOX, inorganic DBFs, and Br. The ampules were shipped on
12/15/97 to laboratories that are approved to analyze ICR samples for one or more of the study
parameters.
The labs are required to have their analytical results back to EPA by January 23,1998. As
required in PE 4 & 5, the labs must report data using every method for which they are approved.
If a lab no longer wants to maintain approval for a method, a brief letter to the ICR Chemistry
Lab Coordinator prior to the conclusion of PE 6 will alleviate the embarrassment of having a
failure appear on the lab's PE Study 6 report.
Several labs have requested a schedule for the future studies. We can't give you exact
shipping dates, but here's an estimate: PE 7 - early April '98; PE 8 - early August '98; PE 9 -
early November '98. Of course, we'll send out announcement letters to the labs approximately
one month before the shipment date.
-------
HOW abOUt a peek?....at your QC data - Some laboratories have
expressed concern whether their data are meeting the ICR QC requirements. In response to these
concerns and the delay of data upload into the ICR Federal database (ICR FED), EPA sent out ^
letters to ICR chemistry laboratory contacts offering special technical assistance. Through EPA's
supporting contractor (SAIC), a cursory review of the laboratory's ICR QC data will be
conducted. This review will help catch QC mistakes, so they can be corrected without further
delay. For more details about this special technical assistance, consult your ICR laboratory
contact for a copy of the December 5th letter.
(Note: Similar technical assistance for protozoa and virus laboratories has been underway since
August 1997.)
Chem Lab AuditS - EPA has begun conducting on-site laboratory audits. These
audits review the lab's ICR QA plan, SOPs, and selected analytical data. Among the key items
checked are that the ICR labs use the EPA supplied standards and follow the QA procedures
outlined in Sections 9-11 of the DBP/ICR Analytical Methods Manual.
Important! Read this! -Now that I've got your attention...If you're conducting
a membrane treatment study, this is important! Part 3 of the TCR Manual for Bench- and
Pilot-Scale Treatment Studies describes the monitoring requirements for membrane studies and
lists the water quality parameters that must be sampled during the study. One parameter that is
not listed in this manual is ammonia, which is an important water quality parameter due to its
impact on the chlorine demand of a water. For this reason, we strongly encourage utilities
conducting membrane studies to monitor ammonia in the feed, permeate and concentrate streams
from a membrane system. Th* TP.R Treatment Study Data Collection Spreadsheets contain cells
to record ammonia concentrations during membrane studies.
Conducting a RSSCT Treatment Study? Read this,
tOO! - During a bench-scale GAC study (or RSSCT), utilities are required to collect twelve
effluent samples from both the 10- and 20-minute contactors over the course of a run. Section
5.3, Part 2 of the TCR Manual for Bench- and Pilot-Scale Treatment Studies (p. 2-29) states that
effluent samples should be collected after the first hour of operation and then at 5% to 8%
increments of the average influent TOC. Furthermore, this section demonstrates a procedure for
estimating a RSSCT sampling plan, as shown in Table 5-4. When applying this approach to
estimate the sampling plan, it is important to realize that the times estimated by this approach are
instantaneous sampling tunes, and that effluent sample collection will occur over a sampling
period.
The duration of this sampling period can be incorporated in the RSSCT sampling plan as
follows. First, develop a RSSCT sampling plan as described in the manual. Next, estimate the
duration of the sampling period by dividing the sample volume by the flow rate to the small-
scale column. Define the beginning of a sampling period by subtracting one-half of the duration
-------
of the sampling period from each of the times estimated in the sampling plan. Define the end of
a sampling period by adding one-half of the duration of the sampling period to each of the times ^
estimated in the sampling plan. For example, assume a flow rate of 0.6 L/hr, a sample volume of
2 L, and a sample plan of lhr, 9te, 18hr,... The duration of the sampling period is (2 L)/(0.6 L/hr),
or 3.3 hours. The beginning and end of each sampling period are defined as follows: sampling
period 1 (start: lhr; end: 4.3hr); sampling period 2 (start: 7.35hr; end 10.65hr); sampling period 3
(start: 16.35hr; end: 19.65hr) ... Note that the first sampling period will always begin at 1 hour.
Also remember that three duplicate effluent samples must be collected from each column, and
the duration of the sampling period for duplicate samples will be twice that for regular samples.
Finally, remember that this procedure is an estimate for a RSSCT sampling plan, and on-
site UV254 or TOC measurements should be used to define the sampling plan when possible.
However, even in the case where on-site TOC/UV254 analyses are available to define a sampling
plan, the estimated sampling plan can be a usefurplanning tool. For example, if the estimated
sampling plan shows overlapping sampling periods, that would indicate that the RSSCT needs to
be redesigned to "spread-out" the sampling events.
J3A111 Want for Christmas is a four-bit Gasket!/3 - For
those using a Parker M39R10A yarn wound filter for collection of protozoan samples, the use of
a gasket may be critical to avoid loss of protozoa. It has been brought to our attention, that
since the LT-10 filter holder was redesigned a few years ago to make it easier to handle, bypass
of the sample around the filter may occur due to. a leak in the seal. This can be prevented by the
purchase of Parker P/N 2621-1542 polyfoam gaskets which cost just 50? each. These should be
available from your filter supplier. It is recommended that a gasket be used at each end of the
filter when it is mounted in the housing. If your supplier does not have these, please call Norm
Klimek at Fluid Technology, 303/233-7400. Merry Christmas!
Virus Sampling Flow Rate Clarification - ThejcRMcrobmi
Laboratory Manual makes several references to the flow rate for virus sampling. On page VIII-
11, step 10, it states that when pressurized taps are not available, a pump capable of supplying 3
gal/min at 30 PSI should be used. On page VIII-13, step 8-b, it refers to the thiosulfate addition
(lOmL/gal) for finished water at a flow rate of 3 gal/min. Though inferred, it does not explicitly
state that the flow rate for virus sampling should be no greater than 3 gal/min. Therefore,
please consider this a "clarification" that the flow rate for virus sampling should not exceed 3
gal/min. If this rate is exceeded within the precision of the flowmeter being used (which should
be at worst ±10%), then the sample data should be flagged by the utility with an "R" (for
rejected), and the comment that "sampling flow rate was exceeded" should be added to the
comment field.
Update... - The November 1997ICR Update provided a
summary of the design and implementation strategy for the ICR Supplemental Surveys and ICR
Lab Spiking Program. However, since the November 1997 Update, EPA has decided to modify
-------
the surveys, as detailed below, by expanding the sampling universe and providing more time for
method development. EPA has moved the start date to July 1998. For further information,
contact Heather Shank-Givens, EPA Project Manager, at 202-260-0063.
ICR Lab Spiking Program - The objective of the lab spiking program is to develop an
aggregate recovery rate "adjustment" factor for ICR labs conducting protozoan analysis using the
current ICR method. This data is an important aid hi interpreting ICR protozoan data for source
water and will be used to adjust estimated national protozoan concentrations when evaluating
regulatory options.
The lab spiking program will be expanded to include 40 ICR plants, and their ICR labs.
Plants will be randomly stratified by the size of their ICR lab (i.e., labs conducting more ICR
analyses will have more representation). On four separate sample dates, the plant will collect an
additional 100L concurrent with the monthly ICR sample and ship it to EPA's contract lab for
spiking and filtration (for a total of 160 samples per plant). The filter will then be sent to the
plant's contract ICR lab for analysis with the current ICR method. Of course, EPA will pay
materials, shipping, and analysis costs.
Potential plants will be contacted hi January 1998 and the spiking program will begin in
February/March 1998. When a sufficient number of plants are available for the spiking
program, EPA plans to notify remaining ICR plants to indicate that recruitment is completed.
ICR Supplemental Surveys - The supplemental surveys will consist of two surveys: a Large
System Survey (LSS), for systems serving ;> 100,000 people (ICR Systems) and an expanded
Medium/Small System Survey, for systems serving <100,000 people. EPA intends to use
Method 1622 for Crypto and Giardia analysis in both surveys. The Large System Survey
sampling design is the same as that presented in November 1997 - one strata of the 10 largest
plants and a second strata of 50 plants randomly stratified by water body type, with 12 months of
biweekly monitoring for protozoa and microbial indicators.
The Medium/Small Systems Survey sampling frame will be expanded to include all
systems serving <100,000 persons. The design will consist of approximately 100 randomly
selected plants and will monitor biweekly for protozoa and microbial indicators, and monthly
for DBP precursors and WQPs for 12 months.
The extended deadline for starting the supplemental surveys enables EPA to expand the
surveys to include smaller systems and provides more time for validation of the Giardia
component of Method 1622. EPA is generating a list of potential participant plants and will be
contacting them to request voluntary participation in late spring 1998. To ensure statistical
precision, voluntary participation "upon request" is important. Again, EPA will pay for
materials, shipping, and analysis for both surveys.
Method 1622 - What's it all about? - Method 1622, about to be round-robin tested (see article
above), was developed to improve the recovery, the precision, and the detection limit for
Cryptosporidium and Giardia in water samples. Validation processes have not yet been
-------
completed for Method 1622, and it is likely that some of the method procedures will be
modified. Therefore, it is not ready for routine use and cannot be substituted for the ICR
method in the ICR.
Method 1622 was developed using the most recent, but "off-the-shelf technology available.
Some of the differences in the two methods are highlighted in the table below:
Some Procedural Differences Between the ICR Method and Method 1622
Procedure
Sample Volume
Filter Type
Clean-up Step
Stain
Microscopic
Examination
Filtrate Examined
ICR Method
100 liters
polypropylene wound fiber
filter
Percoll-sucrose flotation
indirect fluorescent antibody
of a membrane filter
fraction; sometimes < 1 liter
Method 1622
10 liters
polyether sulfone pleated capsule
filter, flat plate membrane filter, or
vortex flow filtration
immunomagnetic separation
direct fluorescent antibody
of a teflon coated well slide
up to entire 10 liters
REMEMBER: Method 1622 cannot be substituted for the ICR method in the ICR.
Next Month's ICR Update - In the next issue of the
ICR Update we'll look at the on-site analyses being performed at EPA's
TSC lab in Cincinnati. Basically, these analyses consist of monthly low-
level bromate (pictured) and quarterly aldehydes for treatment plants
that use ozone or chlorine dioxide, and quarterly cyanogen chloride
analysis for plants that use chloramines. All aldehyde and cyanogen
samples must be analyzed within a two-day holding time. Bromate
samples have a 28-day holding time. In November, TSC received
samples from 86 water systems. '
1C for Low-Level Bromate Analyses
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MS-140)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No G-35
EPA 815-N-97-008
------- |