Conference Call Summary

August 8, 2006

Participants

Joel Allen	US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati
Clint Beckert	USACE, Rock Island District
Esther Dundore	American Water Company
Steve Faryan	US EPA, Region 5, Emergency Response Branch
Bill Franz	US EPA, Region 5, Water Division
Tim Ganz	American Water Company
Andrew Gavin	Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Dave Hokanson	UMRBA
Derek Martin	UMRBA
Mark Mitchell	Illinois Rural Water Association
Ryan Schuler	American Water Company
Greg Swanson	Moline Water Department

Operational Status

Based on information provided by Dave Kull prior to the conference call, there has been very little change in the operational status of the equipment since the last conference call. The YSI instrument is still operating under limited functionality as follows:

Due to water intrusion issues, the DO probe has been removed to avoid compromising the functions of the other probes.
The chlorophyll probe appears to have also been affected by the water intrusion and continues to produce inaccurate data.
pH (trigger parameter), temperature, conductivity, oxidation/reduction potential, and turbidity continue to function correctly.

Dave Hokanson updated the group regarding a conversation held between himself, Kull, Clint Beckert, Tim Ganz, and Derek Martin following the last conference call in which these individuals felt that it was best to keep the probe running on limited functionality through October given the cost and potential time out of operation associated with repairs to the probe. Ganz further noted that a reason not to invest further at this point was that improved technology may be available soon and it would be preferable to invest in that. Joel Allen suggested that the vendor may be willing to supply a loaner during the repair period. Hokanson commented that this may be awkward as the current sonde is actually on loan from YSI. Steve Faryan offered to assist if the group was interested in pursuing a loaner.

E-mail Notification System

The e-mail notification system is not yet functioning, but Beckert informed the group that it will be very easy to implement once the USACE IT staff gets a chance to work on it. IT staff are currently busy with hurricane duties, but the simplicity of the task should allow for them to possibly get the system up and running within a few days.

UPDATE: The email notification system became functional as of Wednesday, August 9^th. Test emails have been successfully received by those individuals identified in the email communication proposal.

Perspective from EPA-ORD on Early Warning Systems (Joel Allen)

(NOTE: Prior to this discussion with Joel Allen, a few members of the scoping group (Bill Franz, Ganz, Ryan Schuler, Martin, and Hokanson) participated in a conference call with the Metro Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). MWCOG is currently operating a series of bio-monitors and chemical monitors in an early warning system (EWS) for the Washington, D.C. area. That discussion illustrated the practical applications of bio-monitoring approaches for EWSs. Allen’s information built on this initial knowledge regarding bio-monitoring).

Allen, who has a background in toxicology and source water protection, gave the group a synopsis of his experience with early warning systems. Allen suggested the use of on-line bio-monitors as early warning toxicity monitors. The bio-monitors that he’s most familiar utilize bivalves. This system monitors the physical activity of the bivalves in the water and generates a warning whenever abnormal physical activity is observed, indicating that some change has occurred in the water. Additionally, “standard” water quality parameters are also monitored by a multi-parameter probe, such as the YSI instrument, co-located at the bio-monitoring stations. With the use of a bio-monitor system, the possibility of false positives exists, but is outweighed by the advantages of the system. He noted that the system does require the ability to follow-up on alarms with organics analysis.

Allen is currently involved in work on a pilot system on the Little Miami and Ohio Rivers. Allen further noted that the cost of the bio-monitoring equipment using bivalves ranges from $4,000 to $10,000 per station (not including the cost of the accompanying multi-parameter sonde).

Allen expressed his interest in partnering with the scoping group in order to deploy some of these on-line bio-monitors on the UMR. Franz asked what specific type of support Allen envisioned. Allen replied that he would likely be able to deploy one bio-monitor on the UMR in the near future. Hokanson indicated that this was a very interesting opportunity that the Scoping Group would need to consider seriously and then get back to Allen.

Hokanson asked Allen if he saw any disadvantage to the group continuing to pursue an expansion of the network of multi-parameter water quality instruments, with the possibility of piloting and/or adding bio-monitors in the future. Allen did not see any disadvantage to this approach.

Hokanson asked Allen to clarify the relationship between his work and US EPA’s “WaterSentinel” program. Allen explained that his work was separate from WaterSentinel and that the WaterSentinel program (and funding) was specifically aimed at distribution systems rather than early warning systems. Allen further suggested pursuing Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Ganz agreed that this would be an appropriate route to pursue. Allen also noted that in order for a project involving the bivalve bio-monitoring apparatus to be funded through DHS, the apparatus would need to be approved by DHS. The bio-monitoring system used by MWCOG, which uses fish (bluegills) has received DHS approval, but the bivalve systems has not yet received approval, though Allen felt that this was very possible.

UPDATE: Following the conference call, Franz and Allen consulted on the possibility of using a Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) funding mechanism to support the establishment of bio-monitoring stations on the UMR. If awarded, this could potentially involve a two-year funding package of $100-200,000 and fund 6 to 10 bio-monitoring stations. Details would need to be worked out, but Franz asked that the group consider potential participation in such a program.

Further Information from Conversation with MWCOG

Hokanson provided some additional information gathered in phone conversation with MWCOG. Some points of note included:

MWCOG, in cooperation with the Maryland Department of the Environment and USGS, operates 15 monitoring stations for the Washington, D.C. area.
These monitoring stations include both a bio-monitoring (fish response) system and a chemical/physical monitoring component (Hach “source water panel”). Each component runs $60,000-$70,000.
Communication system is still being worked out.
Approximately 1 FTE from MWCOG is utilized to coordinate the system, with additional help from MWCOG IT staff. On-site staff time provided by utilities and USGS (under contract).
Funding came via the states and municipalities under “State Homeland Security” and “Urban Area Security” programs. Other suggested funding sources included Congressional earmarks and set-asides under the states’ drinking water revolving loan funds.

UMR Early Warning System Proposal and Letter from UMRWSC

Ganz and Greg Swanson indicated that they would continue to refine the proposal and letter, respectively, and particularly in light of the possibilities discussed today.

Next Steps

Beckert will continue working with USACE IT staff to get the e-mail notification system up and running.

The group decided that it was necessary to further investigate and discuss the possibility of bio-monitoring before responding to Allen’s offer of support. The group agreed to hold a follow-up conference call as soon as possible for this purpose. A conference call committed to this follow-up discussion has been scheduled for Monday August 21^st at 1:00 pm central time. UMRBA will gather background documents and distribute to the group in advance.

Ganz and Swanson will continue working on proposal and correspondence.