Early
Warning Monitoring Network (UMR EWMN)
Scoping Group
Conference Call Summary
Participants
|
Tim Ganz |
American
Water Company |
|
Esther Dundore |
American
Water Company |
|
Dave Kull |
Iowa-American
Water Company |
|
John Sullivan |
|
|
Ann |
|
|
Clint Beckert |
|
|
Ryan Schuler |
American
Water Company |
|
Bob Cibulskis |
|
|
Dave Hokanson |
UMRBA |
|
Lisa DeAlessio |
UMRBA |
|
Bryan Lloyd |
UMRBA |
|
Derek Martin |
UMRBA |
Background
on Early Warning Monitoring Network/"Big Picture"
Ann
Whelan provided thoughts on the history and beginning of the UMR Early Warning
Monitoring Network. She highlighted the
following as key elements of the original concept of the network:
§
To provide real time data to detect spills on
the UMR.
§
To explore the compatibility of an in-stream
probe in a large river system and subject to environmental stressors
(freeze-thaw, etc.).
§
Oil spill detection was a primary initial
motivator. However, the monitoring of more generalized water quality parameters
has become incorporated into the project due to the type of probe currently in
use and the benefits to participants in knowing these parameter values.
§
Original scoping group chose not to follow the
ORSANCO model (i.e. lab analysis-GC at multiple sites) in order to: 1) keep
costs down, 2) get real time data, and 3) minimize complexity.
§
The approach has also emphasized a cooperative
relationship with the Corps of Engineers.
Ann
further noted that we do not need to necessarily re-convene the original
scoping group to have the type of discussions being held today.
Tim
Ganz asked if there was a way we could approach monitoring for petroleum
products without using GC. Ann responded
that she was not sure if any probes existed at this time that could accomplish
this, but something may be available. Clint Beckert commented that nothing is
currently available that would fit into the sonde currently being used, and he
mentioned that a fluorescence approach might be able to make a qualitative
measurement for petroleum products.
John
Sullivan offered that more data regarding trigger values is available if
needed, beyond what he has already contributed to the group. The group should just let Sullivan know what
the needs are. Beckert commented that
less data will generally be available in the winter than in the summer.
Update
on Probe Operation
Dave
Kull provided a summary of current probe operation status. A regular calibration routine has been
established.
Sullivan
asked whether it was possible to get a long-term record of the data from the
probe. Beckert responded that hourly data for several past days is available on
the web site, and that older data is available as one value per day. Beckert also noted that much of the older
data would not be accurate, anyway, due to previous calibration problems with
probe. Beckert did offer that the
parameters of data storage could be potentially changed if that was desired by
the group.
Kull
said that he still needs to work on calibration of chlorophyll. Beckert noted some limitations in the
measurement of chlorophyll – such as potential for swings in the readings and
that different flora dominate in different times of the year. In general, he suggested that chlorophyll
readings should be interpreted as relative values. Kull concurred.
Kull
commented that, ideally, it would be advantageous to increase the frequency of
maintenance checks/calibration. Tim Ganz then asked whether it might be
possible to re-locate the probe nearer to personnel.
Beckert
thought that relocation would be possible. The only disadvantages he could see
would be the lack of Corps personnel available for installation/maintenance. In response to question from Dundore, Beckert
indicated that probe and data collection platform need to be located relatively
close together and are connected by a cable, but that the data can easily then
be transmitted from the remote location.
He further indicated that the data collection platform would need to be
protected in some type of enclosure, but that the transmission antenna and
solar panel were not vulnerable to the weather.
Beckert
further clarified that probe had been placed in current location partly for the
convenience of
Hokanson
suggested that a subset of group (perhaps Kull, Ganz, Beckert, and Dundore)
look into the specifics of relocation and provide an update at the February
UMRWSC/ UMR Spills Group Meeting.
Hokanson
mentioned that YSI has not yet requested payment for the probe. There was some discussion of whether the
probe was new, used, or some type of loaner.
Hokanson agreed to look into this further.
Ganz
raised the question of whether we should be looking at equipment to
specifically detect petroleum at this point.
Dundore suggested that we should begin the background research.
Trigger
Values/Trigger System/Notification and Communication
Hokanson
raised the question of what the intended use(s) of the trigger values would
be. Beckert stated that it should be
designed to detect both accidental (petroleum & agricultural) and
intentional contamination. He further
noted that currently measured parameters (with current probe) are ancillary to
spills detection and not direct measures.
Dundore
thought it would be helpful if values could also aid in adjustment of treatment
for water suppliers. She further asked
if there was any historical documentation of values observed during spills.
Beckert commented that a spills database is available. He also noted that most spills are smaller
scale. Dundore questioned whether the
equipment was intended to detect only large spills or could capture smaller
ones as well.
Beckert
indicated that the Corps currently uses a color-coded system on the website to
highlight changes in values, but there was not currently any precedent he was
aware of on the Corps site for the type of trigger and notify system being
discussed.
Ganz
thought it might be desirable to set up a tiered notification system. Kull felt
that, at minimum, the current website structure with display of data could be a
beneficial communication tool.
Ganz
indicated that pH has been reliably tracked and that this might be a particular
parameter to focus on initially. There
was general consensus in the group that focusing in on pH for test phase would
be a good approach.
Bob
Cibulskis indicated that it was certainly possible to craft a routine that
would examine the data and trigger a notification system. However, would need
to know more about the setup of the data transmission system and the website to
make a conclusive judgment. Bob
suggested possible points where data could be accessed as:
1) At the data
source/data collector. This would me that notification routine would be
“inserted” into the data transmission chain.
2) At the server
which houses the data. This would require Corps agreement to have such a script
running on their server.
3) From the
website, if “web services” are enabled. This would be least intrusive approach (but
also furthest from original data source).
Hokanson
asked who would be the best organization to be responsible for the notification
system. Cibulskis noted that EPA already has 24 hour communication networks in
place. Hokanson mentioned the Corps and
EPA as possible candidates to run the system.
Beckert
agreed to find out more about the function of the website, who IT contact would
be, and further investigate what Corps’ contribution to the process could be.
Hokanson
suggested February Spills Group meeting as target time for having information
on IT/notification options assembled. He suggested this was something to be
worked on by another subset of group (Beckert, Whelan, Cibulskis, Ganz,
Hokanson).
Hokanson
offered that perhaps test pH values could simply be chosen at this point and
further refined as project progress. Kull suggested 7.5 and 9.2 as test trigger
values for pH.
Dundore
asked whether rate of change could also be a trigger. Beckert agreed that this would be important
if it is possible. Cibulskis stated that
yes, this was possible, and there were other situations where this approach was
used.
Hokanson
asked whether an overall timeline could be established for completing the
assessment phase of the project. It was
generally agreed that assessment should be largely complete by the time of the
October Spills/UMRWSC meetings.
Summary of
Major Decisions and Action Items:
1. The group agreed that the assessment of the
UMR Early Warning Monitoring Network should continue, with a target
timeline of the October Spills/UMRWSC Meetings for completion of assessment
phase and decision on future use/program recommendations. Ongoing calibration
and maintenance activities for the probe shall continue.
2. The group
agreed that it was important to assess the triggering and communication system
in evaluating the overall UMR Early Warning Monitoring Network. A subset of the group (Beckert, Whelan, Ganz,
Hokanson, and possibly Cibulskis), along with IT staff from EPA and USACE will
investigate the specifics of establishing the communication system. Plan to
report on progress no later than February meetings. Further, the group agreed that, rather than
conducting extensive research into trigger values, pH would be targeted as an
initial parameter of interest, and values would be select that would best allow
for testing of the system.
3. The group
agreed that a relocation of the probe should be explored to make most efficient
use of personnel time. A subset of the group (Beckert, Ganz, Dundore,
and Kull) would investigate the possibilities for relocation and report at the
February meetings.