r
;'Right on Target."
-D. Pace
ICR Update
Jim Walasek, Editor
Technical Support Center
April 1999
Utilities Submit Last of Data!
ICR Update ISSUe Number 17 - This information sheet, the ICR Update,
is the seventeenth 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.
Editor's Note: Well, we're right on target with the utilities submitting the last month of data
from the 18-month ICR monitoring effort by the end of this month. All that remains is the
validation and analysis of that data, no small task!
Remember, all ICR utility data diskettes for the full 18-months of monitoring and the Final
Design data transfer package (See p. 2-11 of the ICR Sampling Manual) are due to EPA by the
end of April 1999. I have been calling ICR utilities lately (actually it's an ongoing effort)
encouraging them (I'm being kind) to submit their diskettes for the next group of diskettes we
will be uploading. As you know, if you actually read this rag, we are now uploading three
months of data at a time for validation. The last set of reports that you received were for
October, November and December 1997, plus a second set of validation reports for September
1997 (for your second review.) You were only given one opportunity to review the three months
of data and resubmit diskettes. This will be the rule from now on, only one review cycle per set
of validation reports. (Actually, this was the plan all along, but a second review cycle was added
in the beginning to help sort out problems.) The next set of diskettes to be uploaded will be for
the January, February, and March 1998 sampling periods. Therefore, it is very important that all
utilities send in their diskettes now to stay ahead of the upload process.
Finally, I just wanted to remind the utilities and labs out there to update their ICR contact
and address (and phone/fax) information when items change. For instance, with the glut of cell
phones and fax machines there have been a lot of new area codes created. We here at EPA want
to keep our records up to date, so if you have a change drop us a note on your letterhead.
-------
Besides, who knows, it may speed up the arrival of the next ICR Update. This brings up another
interesting point. Utility validation reports are sent to the name and address listed on the data
transfer diskette. So, even if you send in your changes, we can't guarantee that the validation
reports will be sent to the new contact and/or address unless the correct information was on the
"last" diskette that was loaded into the system. (Note: This is not a problem for labs because
TSC controls the addresses that are used by ICR-FED.)
j ,!i
SNAFU - The last issue of the ICR Update (February 1999) should have been sent at the
end of January so you would actually have it in February, but because of a mixup (read "lost") at
the mailing contractor's shop it wasn't mailed until the first of March. Sorry, I promise it won't
happen again.
"Final Design" Deadline - Not to be confused with "Final Jeopardy," but
there could be similar consequences. The ICR Sampling Manual (EPA 814-B-96-001) discusses,
on page 2-11, the Final Design data transfer package that must be submitted to EPA along with
the last monthly reporting package. Both of these packages are due to EPA by the end of April
1999. The Final Design data, which are similar to the Initial Sampling Plan data, do not include
sampling location and analytical parameters (because you will no longer be monitoring), but
should accurately reflect the design of each PWS at the end of the 18-month ICR sampling
period. Chapter 8 (Final Design) of the ICR Water Utility Database System Users' Guide (EPA-
B-96-004) provides directions on how to prepare and submit the Final Design transfer package
to EPA. One change that should be noted (see page 138) is the address to which you will be
sending your diskette mailer. It is the same address that you have been using for the last few
months of monthly monitoring submissions:
USEPA (ICR4600)
ICR Data Center - Attn: Ed Cottrill
Room 1115B East Tower
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Should you have any questions regarding the procedure for creating the Final Design
transfer diskette you may contact the ICR DMS Hotline at (703) 292-6170 (new number).
X Zlv - Lately, several utilities have called to ask if the ICR Utility Database software is Y2K
compliant. The answer is not a clear yes or no. The product (Microsoft Access Version 2.0)
used to develop the software is not Y2K compliant. The software itself is also not technically
Y2K compliant. However, EPA granted an exemption from the Y2K requirements, since the
software is not expected to be used in the year 2000. Even if you do use the software in 2000 it
will not affect your computer, but you should not submit data to EPA generated on your
computer (using the ICR Water Utility or Laboratory QC Database Systems) after the year 1999.
Therefore, it is doubly important that you submit your diskettes (and resubmission diskettes) to
EPA on time.
-------
r
Request for Backup Diskettes - A letter was recently sent to the ICR
utilities requesting that they create a backup diskette of their ICR Utility Database System and
send it to the ICR Data Center. This is so EPA can capture all the comments in the Analyte
comment field. Currently, when utilities enter a QA comment in a "Comment" field at the
Analyte level without entering a QA comment in the comment field at the sample level, the
utility system does not have the capability to retrieve the comments at the Analyte level. To
correct this situation a change to the ICR Water Utility Database System would be required.
That would mean the creation of a new version (Version 1.2) of the software that would then
have to be duplicated and sent to each ICR utility for installation. Then the utilities would have
to generate a new transfer diskette for each of the 18 reporting periods. However, a simpler
solution is for each utility to send a backup diskette of their ICR Utility Database to the EPA
ICR Data Center. EPA will then write an algorithm (for ICR-FED) to obtain the QA comment
field entries from the backup diskettes.
The backup diskette(s) should be created by utilities and sent to EPA after they have made
any necessary corrections to the first six months of data in their system. Therefore, they should
send in the backup diskette(s) at the same time they send in resubmission diskettes (if required)
for sampling periods 03, 04, 05, and 06 (September, October, November, and December 1997).
Refer to the letter for details, including special labeling instructions for the disks. (The current
deadline for submitting the resubmission diskettes is April 20, 1999.)
Analysis of Membrane Treatment Study Results - The
last two issues of ICR Update have included articles describing the analysis of data from the ICR
treatment studies. The first article provided an overview of the data management plan, while the
second provided an overview of the GAC data analysis plan. The final installment in this series
will describe the analysis plan for the results from the membrane (nanofiltration) studies.
In general, two broad categories of information will be extracted during analysis of the
membrane study results: productivity data and water quality ;data. Productivity data will be
used to assess the ability of a membrane to produce water at an acceptable rate and without
excessive cleaning requirements. Feed and permeate water quality will be used to assess the
ability of a membrane process to remove disinfection byproduct (DBP) precursors.
Analysis of productivity data will focus on information necessary to estimate the cost and
technical feasibility of implementing a nanofiltration process. Specifically, the following
information will be extracted during analysis:
• Sustained rate of water production - impacts the size of a membrane facility.
• Cleaning interval — impacts the frequency at which the membrane system must be taken
off-line and cleaned.
• Pressure requirements - impacts the energy costs associated with operating a nanofiltration
system.
-------
• Pretreatment process train - the processes upstream of the nanofiltration process will
impact the rate of water production, cleaning interval and pressure requirements.
Typically, advanced pretreatment processes will improve the overall productivity of the
nanofiltration system; however, these advanced processes are generally more expensive.
Analysis of water quality data will focus on the removal of disinfection byproduct
precursors. Specifically, removal of TOC, UV-254, bromide, and DBFs formed under simulated
distribution system conditions will be assessed by comparing the feed and permeate
concentrations of these parameters. Removal of general water quality parameters, such as
hardness and total dissolved solids, will also be evaluated.
With respect to water quality, nanofiltration can be treated as a steady-state process over
periods in which the feed water quality is relatively stable. However, the permeate and
concentrate water quality from a nanofiltration process are impacted by changes in operating
conditions such as recovery, flux, and concentrate recycle ratio. Furthermore, the operating
conditions used during the bench- and pilot-scale tests may not reflect full-scale operating
conditions. To address these concerns, the results from the treatment studies will be scaled-up.
A mathematical representation of a full-scale array will be used to develop estimates of
full-scale permeate and concentrate water quality. This model will normalize the water quality
data from different studies with respect to operating conditions, and will increase the relevancy
of the data with respect to full-scale performance.
The analysis will also evaluate the feasibility of blending the permeate water with a
portion of by-passed feed water. Blending can be used in a nanofiltration process since the
permeate water quality typically exceeds the treatment objective. The benefits of blending
include:
• Reduced size of the nanofiltration process train.
• Lower energy and operating costs.
• Smaller concentrate stream requiring treatment and/or disposal.
• Increased stability of the permeate resulting in lower post-treatment chemical addition.
Also, the feed/permeate blending analysis will allow for more equitable comparisons between the
costs of GAC and nanofiltration treatment as DBF control strategies.
As with the GAC data, the results from the analysis of the membrane study data will be
transferred to a relational database. The querying capability of this database will allow the user
to aggregate different information from these studies in order to conduct a wide range of
analyses.
This will be a very effective tool for evaluating the ability of nanofiltration to meet
different regulatory targets for a variety of source waters. However, the accuracy of this tool is
only as good as the data generated during the studies, and we are relying on the hard work and
dedication of everyone involved in these studies to provide the highest quality data.
-------
Help iS On the Way! - With April here at last, the testing phase of the treatment
study requirement is drawing to a close, and utilities, consultants and laboratories are working to
produce the Final Reports for these studies. Much of the reporting format has been standardized
through the use of spreadsheets, i.e., the Data Collection Spreadsheets and the Summary Report
Spreadsheets. However, there are still many questions regarding the compilation of these
complex data sets.
To provide some assistance during the preparation of these Final Reports, we have
developed a Help Packet. This packet will be mailed to all utilities conducting treatment studies
in late April, and it will be posted on the OGWDW homepage. This Help Packet will include:
• A concise summary of the reporting requirements
• A list of commonly asked questions and answers
• Tips and guidelines for entering data into the Data Collection Spreadsheets
• Example checklists that will be used during the review of these Final Reports
• A list of resources available to provide additional technical assistance.
Also keep in mind that you can still submit your results to EPA for preliminary review. This is
one way to ensure that your Final Report will make it through the review process with little or no
comment, and this will save everyone time and effort.
Supplemental Surveys Underway - Finally, the iong awaited ICR
Supplemental Surveys for Large and Medium Systems began the first week of March 1999!
The surveys are going quite well after a couple initial difficulties with sampling schedules.
These voluntary surveys for large (serving 2100Kpeople) and medium (serving 10K to <100K
people) surface water systems will provide valuable information to use with ICR data in
developing the Long Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2SWTR). Eighty-seven
plants are participating in the Large and Medium Surveys which will run from March 1999
through February 2000. Treatment plants are collecting biweekly samples for Cryptosporidium
(using Method 1622), total coliform, E. coli, and basic water quality parameters. Plants are also
collecting monthly samples for disinfection byproduct precursors (TOC, ammonia, bromide,
and UV254). Once the combined kit (both Cryptosporidium and Giardid) for Method 1622 is
fully validated, we hope to add analysis for Giardia during the later months of the survey.
One potentially significant issue, though, has emerged this month regarding analysis of
bacteriological samples. Participating utilities had agreed to enumerate total coliform and E.
coli as part of their responsibilities as participants in the surveys. Since the start, a few utilities
have indicated that they cannot conduct the enumeration techniques. We consider enumerated
coliform data to be essential for future survey data analysis (i.e., protozoan indicator analysis), as
well as very valuable data for individual utilities to have for their systems. Therefore, we ask all
utilities to make every effort to conduct the enumerative bacteriological analyses as per the
survey design.
-------
And we haven't forgotten about systems serving less than 10,000 people... the Small
System Survey is scheduled to begin by May 1999! Letters confirming the participation of 40
plants have been sent out and we are scheduled to begin sampling on April 19,1999. The
Small System Survey design is the same as that for Medium Systems with the exception of
Cryptosporidium analysis (the Small System Survey will sample only for coliforms, water
quality, and disinfection byproduct precursors). EPA hopes to be able to identify indicator
relationships among source water Cryptosporidium concentrations, water quality, bacteria, and
byproduct precursors using the combined data from all three supplemental surveys.
For further information regarding these surveys, please contact Heather Shank-Givens at
202-260-0063, GIVENS.HEATHER@epamail.epa.gov. or Crystal Rodgers at 202-260-0676,
rodgers.crvstal@epamail.epa.gov.
Method 1622 - The final procedure for Method 1622 (January 1999 version) is
available. The method is currently being used to support the supplemental surveys. Round
robin validation for Method 1623 (derivation of Method 1622 which tests for Cryptosporidium
and Giardia using the Dynal prototype combined IMS kits) is well underway. Most of the data
for this validation process has been received and is undergoing review and analysis. The
anticipated completion date for the round robin validation for the combined Cryptosporidium and
Giardia IMS kit is April 30, 1999.
I |
For further information please contact Crystal Rodgers at 202-260-0676 or at
rodgers.crvstal@epamail.epa.gov.
United States BULK RATE
Environmental Protection Agency pnqT rp
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MS-140) wo pp*
Cincinnati, OH 45268 pERMfT NQ Q.35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA815-N-99-001b
------- |