Profile and Survey of Laboratory Proficiency Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems

Profile and Survey of Laboratory Proficiency

Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems

Division of Technical Assistance and OutreachBureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management

October 2003

Introduction

The purpose of this water and wastewater profile and survey is to better understand the laboratory proficiency problems confronting these industries. This effort helps to better define the needs for a state program for laboratory accreditation. This profile and survey is not intended to meet the statistical standards of research. However, the Department believes it represents an informed view for the evaluation of different regulatory alternatives.

Methodology - Survey

The regulated community impacted by the proposed laboratory accreditation program is very diverse. It involves a variety of ownership, resources, size, location and permit requirements. These factors limit the validity of reaching broad based conclusions about these industries.

To limit biased results, survey a significant number of systems, and provide some reasonable assurances of accuracy, the Department collected information from individuals serving on the Environmental Training Partnership (ETP). The ETP is made up of 100+ individuals that have provided technical assistance to water and wastewater systems over the past 10 years. Each individual holds an appropriate state certification for system operation and has demonstrated their proficiency in their area of expertise. These individuals are not full-time employees of the Department of Environmental Protection and have permanent employment at a water or wastewater system. Their role with the ETP involves one-on-one assistance to water and wastewater systems. Over 350 water and wastewater systems have participated in this program over the past 10 years. The ETP staff offered a special opportunity to garner their opinions and observations about the role lab proficiency plays in the successful operation of a system. By using ETP input, this profile assures a significant sample, statewide analysis, expert hands-on experiences while limiting a bias view of the regulator or regulated community. It must be noted that ETP services are provided only upon request. These services usually involve small non-profit treatment systems that have technical problems or are involved in a startup of new treatment technology. This may bias some of the results of this survey.

Two types of survey forms were developed by the Division of Technical Assistance and the Lab Accreditation and Quality Assurance Section. These forms with instructions were mailed to all ETP employees who provide technical assistance.

Methodology - Profile

A wastewater system profile form was also developed by the Division of Technical Assistance and the Lab Accreditation and Quality Assurance Section. This form’s purpose is to collect information used to create a profile of the wastewater industry’s laboratory needs and capabilities. Water Management regional staff working with wastewater facilities provided this information. Each regional office participated in collection of the profile data to insure inclusion of a suitable range of systems throughout the state. Two-hundred five (205) systems were targeted for profiling. An effort was made to statistically represent the different sizes and types of wastewater systems in the state.

Question Design

Questions were designed to provide both information and informed opinion. Opinion was qualified or quantified through the use of numerical scales of 1 – 10, percentage of occurrence, and scales with varying degrees of reliability, significance of impact, acceptability. To the extent possible, a neutral choice was not provided for each question. Information questions were specific and included both narrative and numerical values. All participants in the surveys and profiling exercise were provided the same set of questions using standardized documents.

Response of Surveyors and Profilers

Profilers surveyed 162 wastewater systems or 80% of the target profile sample. This sample makes up approximately 4% of the 4000 wastewater treatment systems in the state. For the purpose of this exercise, no single family residential treatment systems were included.

ETP staff completed survey information on approximately 135+ drinking water systems. This sample makes up approximately 6%+ of the 2200 community water systems in the state. For the purpose of this exercise, no nontransient noncommunity water systems were included. A plus value is provided with this number, because some respondents failed to indicate the number of systems in which they provided services.

Collection and Tabulation of Data

The information provided by the survey and profile forms were tabulated and presented either in a bar graph or a pie chart format. An explanation of how the bar graph data is presented is below.:

ETP staff completed survey information on approximately 252 waste water systems. This sample makes up approximately 5% of the 4,000 wastewater systems in the state.

5

20

12

2

DNR

DNR

34+ systems29%

PercentageValue

Means did not report (DNR)number of systems assistance provided

Means the number of systemstechnical assistance provided

Total number of assistance providers in agreement withpercentage valueanswer

Percentage of the total number of systems where this answer or opinion is assigned

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

548

20DNR

12

2

8

DNR

10

25

DNR

25

20

2

34+ systems29%

35+ systems30%

45 systems39%2 systems

2%

Graph within a Graph

Allows comparison of water and wastewater data.

1.When providing technical assistance to a drinking water facility, you evaluate their laboratory proficiency approximately… percent of the time

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Drinking Water SystemsQuestions, Data and Observations

548

20DNR

12

2

8

DNR

10

25

DNR

25

20

2

34+ systems29%

35+ systems30%45 systems

39%2 systems2%

Observation: ETP staff generally evaluate lab proficiency for water systems when providing technical assistance.

2. What percent of your drinking water systems have problems with laboratory proficiency?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

42 systems31%

33+ systems25%

30+ systems22%

20854

26 systems20%

2

20

25 25 10

DNR

2

12DNR2 systems2%

Observation: A lack of lab proficiency creates a varying degree of problems for water systems served.

3. How would you classify the impact of lab proficiency on poorly performing treatment plant processes?

No Sight Moderate Significant Serious Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact

46 systems37 %

DNR

12

DNR

2

DNR

10

25

25

4

4

8

20

20

2

66 systems50%

20 systems13%

Observation: ETP staff views poor lab proficiency as having a moderate or significant impact on treatment plant processes.

4. What approximate percentage of the drinking water systems you work with, treating less than 1 mgd., conduct their analysis at the treatment site? What is their proficiency?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Poor Marginal Acceptable Good Excellent

20

20

20

20

8

5

5

4

4

25

25

25

25

10

10

DNR

DNR

2

2

12

12

DNR

DNR

2

2

109+ systems82%

22+ systems16%

2 systems1%

12 systems8%

25+ systems19%

82+ systems67%

6 systems4%

Observation: Most small water systems conduct analysis at their treatment system.

Observation: Most small water systems have an acceptable laboratory proficiency level with some marginal activities.

5. What approximate percentage of the drinking water systems you work with, treating greater than 1 mgd., conduct their analysis at the treatment site? And what is their proficiency?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


20

20

20

20

8

4

4

12

12

DNR

DNR

25

25

8 systems9%

20 systems22%

61+ systems68%

12 systems15%

40+ systems49% 29 systems

36%

Observation: Most large water systems conduct analysis at their treatment system with a sizable number using off-site analysis services.

Observation: Most large water systems have an acceptable laboratory proficiency level .

6. In your opinion, how would you rate the lab analysis provided by off-site dedicated laboratories verses on-site drinking water facility laboratories?

Worse Marginally better Equal to Better Significantly than on-site than on-site on-site labs than on-site better than labs labs labs on-site labs

2510

DNR

DNR

12

12

4

5

8

20

20

DNR

2

88+ systems75%

12 systems10%

10 systems8%

8 systems7%

Observation: Off-site laboratories are rated as better than on-site labs

7. What percentage of on-site drinking water laboratories are properly equipped to do analysis of samples?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2

DNR

2020

8

5

4

2

12

DNR

10

25

25

48+ systems36%

40 systems30%

20 systems15%

25 systems19%

Observation: Many water systems have or nearly have properly equipped laboratories to conduct analysis.


25 25

10

DNR

12

2

4

5

20

20

DNR

2

8. What percentage of the drinking water systems you work with have their certified operators conducting the majority of laboratory analyses? And how would you rate their performance?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

25 25

10

DNR

12

2

4

5

8

20

20

DNR

2

24+ systems18%

51+ systems37%

5 systems6%

53 systems39%

37 systems29%

6 systems6%

82 systems65%

Observation: A significant number of water systems use certified operators to perform laboratory analysis. .

Observation: The performance of certified operators in conduction laboratory analysis is generally acceptable; however a significant number of operators are marginal in this skill.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you categorize the problems of on-site drinking water laboratory personnel?

9. Uses appropriate sampling techniques and proper sample preservation?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes22 20 25DNR

12

4

7

8

20

7

8

25

10. Have a basic understanding of skills, knowledge and abilities to conduct analysis?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes25 25

10

8

5

9

7

12

DNR

20

20

DNR 2

2 systems1%

25 systems18%

24 systems18%

67 systems48%

20 systems14%

2 systems1%

25 systems18%

8 systems6%

32 systems23%

2 systems1%

76 systems53%

Observation: Most operators are knowledgeable in sampling technique and preservation.

Observation: Certified operators generally understand the skills, knowledge and abilities to conduct an analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

11. Maintain equipment and provide sufficient QA/QC?

2DNR 2020

8

5

12

6

DNR1025

25

12. Use sample analyses appropriately and timely to make process control decisions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

225

4 2

12 4 1025

8

5

20

20

DNR

2 systems2%

12 systems9%

25 systems18%

45 systems34%

28 systems21%

16 systems12%

5+ systems4%

40 systems29%

5 systems4%

2 systems1%

49 systems36%

12 systems9%

4+ systems3%

25 systems18%

Observation: QA/QC is mediocre at best.

Observation: The use of sample analyses in process control decisions is average.

13. Maintain appropriate and correct records of analysis?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

8

2020

5

42

12 DNR 10

25

25 2

2 systems1%

54 systems40%

30 systems26%

10 systems

7%

25 systems18%

12 systems8%

Observation: Record keeping is generally acceptable

ANALYSIS OF SAMPLING

Based upon your experiences with the ETP, rate the reliability of chemical and biological analyses conducted by on-site drinking water laboratories.

Test Type

Alkalinity

Somewhat

Reliable

23%

Reliable

38%

Good

Reliability

31%

Very

Reliable

8%

Fecal Coliform

Somewhat Reliable

29%

Reliable43%

Good Reliability

14%

Very Reliable14%

Observation: almost ¼ of respondents indicate alkalinity testing is borderline

Observation: almost 30% of respondents indicate fecal coliform testing is somewhat reliable

Flow

Somewhat

Reliable

14%

Reliable

21%

Good

Reliability

58%

Very

Reliable

7%

Not Reliable25%

Somewhat Reliable

13%

Reliable25%

Good Reliability

37%

Nitrate

Observation: Flow testing is generally acceptable and usually reliable

Observation: Over 1/3 of nitrate testing is questionable

pH

Not Reliable8%

Somewhat Reliable

15%

Reliable 23%

Good Reliability

46%

Very Reliable

8%

Residual Disinfection Concentration

Reliable

25%

Good Reliability

33%

Very Reliable

42%

Observation: pH testing is generally reliable however 23% fall below the reliable level

Observation: There is no problem with the residual disinfection concentration analysis

Reliable33%

Good Reliable50%

Very Reliable17%

Turbidity

Not Reliable33%

Reliable 33%

Good Reliability

17%

Very Reliable17%

Copper

Observation: There is no problem with the reliability of turbidity results

Observation: Even though a limited number of systems conduct Copper analysis, many who do have problems

Reliable18%Very Reliable

46%

Good Reliability

36%

Chlorine

SOCs, VOCs, Chlorine Dioxide, Lead,

Aluminum, Iron, Manganese, Sulfate,

TDS&

TTHMS

Not usually conducted at on-site labs or

insufficient data to make and observation

Observation: There is no problem with the reliability of Chlorine test results

1.When providing technical assistance to a wastewater facility, you evaluate their laboratory proficiency approximately…percent of the time

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wastewater Systems Questions, Data and Observations

4

24

28

30

17

2

10

52

30

10

DNR

DNR

113 systems67%

32 systems21%


1%

10

DNR

20

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

548

20DNR

12

2

8

DNR

10

25

DNR

25

20

2

34+ systems29%

35+ systems30%


2%

Drinking Water Data

Observations: 1. Wastewater ETP staff are twice as likely to evaluate lab proficiency than Drinking Water ETP staff.

2. Wastewater ETP staff usually conduct an evaluation of lab proficiency on most technical assistance sites.

2. What percent of your wastewater systems have problems with laboratory proficiency?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

DNR DNR 10 30

42

24

28

5

3010

217

110 systems47%

90 systems39%

2 systems1%

20 10

30

10

30 systems13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

42 systems31%

33+ systems25%30+ systems

22%

26 systems20%

20854

2

20

25 25 10

DNR

2

12DNR

2 systems2%

Drinking Water Data

Observations: 1. Almost 90% of wastewater systems in the program have a percentage rating of 60% or greater for experiencing laboratory proficiency problems. Almost 65% of these systems rate above the 80% level.

2. Wastewater systems have nearly twice the problems with laboratory proficiency as drinking water systems.

3. How would you classify the impact of lab proficiency on poorly performing treatment plant processes?


DNRDNR

10

4

25

24

28

5

30

10

2

17

183 systems73%


12%

20

2

30

10

5

DNR

10

20

Observations: 1. Wastewater ETP technical assistance providers overwhelming agree that poor lab proficiency significantly impact treatment plant processes.

2. Drinking Water ETP providers generally view the importance of laboratory proficiency as significant, but not to the extent of Wastewater ETP providers


46 systems37 %

DNR

12

DNR

2

DNR

10

25

25

4

4

8

20

20

2

66 systems50%

20 systems13%

Drinking Water Data

4. What approximate percentage of the wastewater systems you work with, treating less than 1 mgd., conduct their analyses at the treatment site? What is their proficiency?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

28

30

10

5

2

30

DNR

24systems19%

28+ systems11%

45 systems18%

10 DNR

2017

10

5

5

24

4

20

25 systems10%

Drinking Water Data

123 systems51%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17

8

DNR

2

12

20

20

5

4

25

25

10

DNR

2

109+ systems82%

22+ systems16%

2 systems1%

Observations:

1. Small wastewater and drinking water systems appear to rely equally on in-house and off-site lab analysis


24

25

10

20 30

10

DNR

DNR

5

17

10 30

5

28

2

20

4 a. What is their proficiency?

4


20 205

425

2510

DNR

212

DNR

2

12 systems8%

25+ systems19%

82+ systems67%

6 systems4%

Drinking Water Data

26 systems11%

109 systems45%

106 systems44%

Observations

1. 44% of all small wastewater systems are considered only to be marginally proficient in lab analysis.

2. Small water systems demonstrate a slightly better laboratory proficiency than wastewater (27% verses 44%), This does not account for the number of systems in the DNR listed as marginal

5. What approximate percentage of the wastewater systems you work with, treating greater than 1 mgd., conduct their analyses at the treatment site? And what is their proficiency?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2425

10

20

10

10

DNR

DNR

30

17

10

30

5

28

2

20 4

128 systems51%

32 systems13%

2

87 systems35%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

20208

4

12

DNR

25

8 systems9%

20 systems22%

61+ systems68%

Observations:

1.A significant percentage of large wastewater systems conduct laboratory analyses at their treatment site.

2. It appears some large drinking water systems do not conduct on-site laboratory analyses. This is not necessarily true for large wastewater systems.

Drinking Water Data

5.a And what is their proficiency?


10

20

10

10

DNR

DNR

30

17

10

30

5

2

59 systems23%

2

167 systems64%

5

DNR

28

24

4

25

10

20

36 systems13%


20

20

4 12

DNR

25

12 systems15%

40+ systems49%

29 systems36%

Observations:

1. Wastewater ETP providers find large system laboratories generally proficient in lab analyses.

2. There appears to be a difference between large wastewater and large drinking water lab proficiency.

Drinking Water Data

6. In your opinion, how would you rate the lab analyses provided by off site dedicated laboratories verses on-site wastewater facility laboratories?

Worse Marginally Equal to Better Significantly han on-site better than on-site labs than on-site labs better than labs on-site labs on-site labs

10

10

DNR DNR

30

17

10

30

5

2

28

2510

20

5

DNR

24

2

42 systems

1%

93 systems40%

93 systems40%

25 systems11%

19 systems8%

Worse Marginally Equal to Better Significantly than on-site better than on-site labs than on-site better than on-site labs on-site labs labs on-site labs

88+ systems75%

2510DNRDNR

12

1245

8

2020

DNR2

12 systems10%

10 systems8%

8 systems7%

Observations:

1. Wastewater ETP providers find system laboratories as equal to offsite laboratories.

2. There appears to be no significant differences between wastewater and drinking water views of on-site laboratory proficiency verses offsite laboratory proficiency.

Drinking Water Data

7. What percentage of on-site wastewater laboratories are properly equipped to do analyses of samples?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1010

30

DNR

30

10

20

5

2

28

10

20

5

DNR

24

4

188 systems75%

42systems17%

17

25

2

12 systems4%

10 systems4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2

DNR

2020

8

5

4

2

12

DNR

10

25

25

48+ systems36%

40 systems30%

20 systems15%

25 systems19%

Observations:

1. Wastewater laboratories appear to be properly equipped to do sample analysis.

2. on-site wastewater laboratories appear to be better equipped to do sample analyses than on-site drinking water laboratories.

Drinking Water Data

8. What percentage of the wastewater systems you work with have their certified operators conducting the majority of laboratory analyses? And how would you rate their performance?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

30

DNR

30

10

20

5

2

28

10

20

5

DNR

24

4

76 systems31%17

2510

2

10 systems5%

27 systems11%

129 systems53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

25 25

10

DNR

12

2

4

5

8

20

20

DNR

2

24+ systems18%

51+ systems37%

5 systems6%

53 systems39%

Observation: 1. A significant number of wastewater systems use certified operators to perform laboratory analyses.

2. It appears more wastewater systems use certified operators to conduct laboratory analyses than do drinking water systems.

Drinking Water Data


8. And how would you rate their performance?

30

DNR

30

10

20

5

2

28

10

20

5

DNR

24

4

17

25

2

100 systems41%

10

86 systems36%

56 systems23%


25 2510

DNR12

2

4

52020

DNR

2

37 systems29% 6 systems

6%

82 systems65%

Observations:

1. The performance of certified operators in conducting wastewater laboratory analyses may be a problem; 36 % of the systems evaluated have marginal performance.

2. Drinking water systems have nearly the same acceptable/good rate of 71% compared to 64% for wastewater.

3. Neither drinking water or wastewater certified operators show laboratory analyses as a strong point. Actually, it appears there s a problem in the industry at many sites.

Drinking Water Data

On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you categorize the problems of on-site wastewater laboratory personnel?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

9. Uses appropriate sampling techniques and proper sample preservation?

30DNR

30

10

20

5

2

28

10

20 5

DNR

24

4

17

25

1010 systems

3% DNR10

46 systems18%

41 systems17%

25 systems10%

15 systems6%

88 systems36%

25 systems10%

Observation: 1. There appears to be a problem with appropriate sampling technique and sample preservation at wastewater systems. 46% are below the 7 level.

2. Water systems apparently do an acceptable job of sampling technique and preservation. 86% are at or above the 7 level.

3. Water systems appear to be better at sampling than wastewater systems.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

22 20 25DNR

12

4

7

8

20

7

8

25

2 systems1%

25 systems18%

24 systems18%

20 systems14%

2 systems1%

67 systems48%

Drinking Water Data

10. Have a basic understanding of skills, knowledge and abilities to conduct analyses?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

30

DNR

3010

5

2

28

10

20

5

DNR

24

4

17

25

10

20 systems9%

DNR10

2 systems1%

38 systems16%

90 systems39%

63 systems27%

17 systems8%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

25 25

10

8

5

9

7

12

DNR

20

20

DNR 2

25 systems18%

8 systems6%

32 systems23%

2 systems1%

76 systems53%

Observation: 1. Wastewater systems appear to fall into two distinct categories: those having KSA’s (75%) and those who fall below the level 7.

2. Water systems, in comparison to wastewater systems, have less understanding in general of KSA’s but a higher capability across all systems in the sample results.

Drinking Water Data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

11. Maintain equipment and provide sufficient QA/QC?

30

DNR30

10 5

2

28

10

20

5

DNR

24

1725

10

54 systems23%

DNR10

24 systems10%

65 systems26%

5 systems1%

30 systems11%

17 systems7%

20

2

25 systems10%

28 systems11%

Observation: 1. Wastewater systems have a problem with QA/QC. Nearly 70% have a less than level6 rating.

2. Drinking water systems appear to have similar problems with QA/QC as compared to wastewater with an even higher less than 6 level rating of 82%.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

2DNR 2020

8

5

12

6

DNR1025

25

2 systems2%

12 systems9%

25 systems18%

45 systems34%

28 systems21%

16 systems12%

5+ systems4%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

12. Use laboratory analyses appropriately and timely to make process control decisions?

30

DNR

30

10 5

4

28

205

DNR

24 17

25

10

30 systems11%

DNR

105 systems

1%


9%

72 systems30%20

2

87 systems36%

10 systems4%

4

Observations: 1. Wastewater systems have an average ability to use analyses to make process control decisions…some facilities stand out as very capable, but a significant number are marginal at best.

2. Drinking Water systems have a 70 % above level 6 level for process control making decisions as compared to wastewater system’s 80% . There is most likely no statistical difference.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

225

4 2

12 4 1025

8

5

20

20

DNR

40 systems29%


1%

49 systems36%

12 systems9%

4+ systems3%

25 systems18%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

13. Maintain appropriate and correct records of analyses?

4

24 28

17

30

17

10

10

5

2

30

20 DNRDNR

100 systems40%


1%

25

DNR

20

105

10

28 systems11%

15 systems6%

35 systems14%

50 systems20%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No Yes

8

2020

5

42

12 DNR 10

25

25 2

2 systems1%

54 systems40%

30 systems26%

10 systems

7%25 systems

18%

12 systems8%

Observations: 1. Approximately 74% of wastewater systems maintain reasonable records of analyses.

2. There appears to be no significant difference between drinking water and wastewater systems relative to record keeping.

ANALYSIS OF SAMPLING

Based upon your experiences with the ETP, rate the reliability of chemical and biological analyses conducted by on-site wastewater laboratories.

Not Reliable

6%

Somewhat

Reliable

24%

Reliable

29%

Good

Reliability

41%

Alkalinity

Not Reliable13%

Somewhat Reliable

19%

Reliable37%

Good Reliable25%

Very Reliable6%

Ammonia - N

Not

Reliable

6%Somewhat

Reliable

22%

Reliable

28%

Good

Reliability

44%

BOD-CBOD

Not

Reliable

11% Somewhat

Reliable

11%

Reliable

45%

Good

Reliability

33%

Color

Somewhat Reliable 14%

Reliable

43%

Good

Reliability

43%

Conductivity

Not

Reliable

7%

Somewhat

Reliable

7%

Reliable

14%

Good Reliability

43%

Very Reliable

29%

Dissolved Oxygen

Not Reliable

13%

Somewhat

Reliable

27%

Reliable

20%

Good Reliability

33%

Very Reliable

7%

Somewhat Reliable

17%

Reliable

17%

Good

Reliability

38%

Very Reliable

28%

Fecal Coliform Flow

Not

Reliable

13%

Somewhat

Reliable

24%

Reliable

25%

Good

Reliability

25%

Very

Reliable

13% Somewhat

Reliable

40%

Reliable

20%

Good

Reliability

40%

Foam Nitrate

Not

Reliable

13%

Somewhat

Reliable

37%Reliable

24%

Good

Reliability

13%

Very

Reliable

13%

Somewhat

Reliable

25%

Reliable

58%

Good

Reliability

17%

Odor Ortho-phosphate

Somewhat

Reliable

38%

Reliable

49%

Good Reliability

13%Somewhat

Reliable

28%

Reliable

17%Good Reliability

17%

Very

Reliable

38%

pHOxidation Reduction Potential

Somewhat Reliable

12%

Reliable

29%

Good Reliability

24%

Very Reliable

35%

Not Reliable

13%

Somewhat Reliable

13%

Reliable

74%

Residual Disinfection Concentration

Sheen

Somewhat

Reliable

19%

Reliable

25%

Good Reliability

31%

Very Reliable

25%

SomewhatReliable

20%

Reliable

27%Good

Reliability

33%

Very Reliable

20%

Sludge VolumeIndex

Solids (TSS,TDS,TS, VSS)

Somewhat Reliable

7%

Reliable

46%Good

Reliability

27%

Very Reliable

20%

Not Reliable

11%

Somewhat

Reliable

22%

Reliable

56%

Good Reliability

11%

Solids (settable) Sulfite

Somewhat Reliable

11%

Reliable

33%

Good Reliability

45%

Very

Reliable

11%

Turbidly

Survey Findings

Both the water and wastewater survey substantiated the need to improve laboratory proficiency. The ETP technical assistance providers for wastewater and water view this shortfall as a significant factor in dealing with treatment problems. The ETP participants in this survey found 51% of water systems and 80% of wastewater systems have problems with laboratory proficiency. The survey establishes the certified operator as the primary provider of chemical and biological analysis services. This fact bridges the operator certification program to the environmental laboratory accreditation program. With the new emphasis on process control decision-making, the survey clearly demonstrates this tandem relationship.

Small water and wastewater systems are more likely than large water and wastewater systems to experience problems with laboratory proficiency. The water and wastewater laboratory proficiency of off-site labs verses on-site private labs is rated equal or better than most on-site labs. Both on-site water and wastewater laboratories have significant shortfalls with their QA/QC protocols and sampling procedures.

The ETP survey indicated that water systems have moderate laboratory proficiency problems with Fecal Coliform (30%), alkalinity(20%) and nitrate (38%) analysis. The survey did not differentiate whether these problem were in small or large water systems. The ETP survey indicated that wastewater systems have moderate laboratory proficiency problems with Fecal Coliform (40%), Ammonia-N (32%), BOD-CBOD (28%), alkalinity(30%) and nitrate(40%).

Based on this survey, the existing water laboratory certification program required by Chapter 109 provides a measurable improvement of laboratory proficiency over the non-regulated wastewater laboratories.

Profile of Randomly Selected Wastewater SystemsThroughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

9% - 15 systems

Greater than 5 mgd. flows 49% - 83 systems

Less than 100,000 gal. flow

27% -46 systems

100,000 gal. to 1 mgd. flow

15% - 26 systems

> Than 1 mgd. to 5mgd. flows

Wastewater Systems ProfileDistribution

Wastewater Profile Data Ownership

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PubliclyOwned

Privately Owned

All Systems

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PubliclyOwned

Privately Owned

< 100,000 gallons

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PubliclyOwned

Privately Owned

.1 mgd to 1 mgd

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PubliclyOwned

Privately Owned

1 mgd to 5 mgd

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PubliclyOwned

Privately Owned

Greater 5 mgd

Impacts of Environmental Lab AccreditationTotal Profile

0 20 40 60 80

Very Significant

Significant

Moderately Significant

Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

Impact on operations and personnel

0 20 40 60 80

Very Significant

Significant


Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

Impact on cost

Impacts of Environmental Lab AccreditationBy System Size

0 20 40 60 80

Very Significant

Significant


Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

Impact on Operations and Personnel

0 20 40 60 80

Very Significant

Significant


Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

0 20 40 60 80

Very Significant

Significant


Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

0 20 40 60 80

Very Significant

Significant


Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

< 100,000 gallons

1 mgd to 5 mgdGreater 5 mgd

.1 mgd to 1 mgd

Impacts of Environmental Lab AccreditationBy System Size

0 10 20 30 40

Very Significant

Significant


Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

Impact on Costs

Very Significant

Significant


Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

Very Significant

Significant


Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

Very Significant

Significant


Moderate

Slight

No Impact

Don't Know

< 100,000 gallons

1 mgd to 5 mgdGreater 5 mgd

.1 mgd to 1 mgd

0 10 20 40 50 0 10 20 30 40

0 10 20 30 40

Estimated Costs Environmental Lab

Accreditation*

$0 -$500

$501 -$2000

$2001 -$5000

$5001 -$10,000

> $10,001

5 10

* Responses very low0 10 20 30 40

Don’t KnowYes

NoEnvironmental Lab Accreditation Act will require you to out-source analysis

< 100,000

100,000 mgd to1 mgd

1 mgd to 5 mgd

> 5 mgd

All size systems

Not Applicable

YesNo

Not Applicable

Don’t Know

YesNo

Not Applicable

Don’t Know

No

Not Applicable

Don’t Know

Yes

Yes

No

Not ApplicableDon’t Know

Analysis that would be done off-site as the result of the Environmental Lab Accreditation Act (most common)

Ammonia -N

BOD/CBODFecal Coliform

Solids

0 10 20 30 40

< 100,000

100,000 mgd to1 mgd

1 mgd to 5 mgd

> 5 mgd

All size systems

Solids

Solids

Solids

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

Fecal Coliform

BOD/CBOD

BOD/CBOD

BOD/CBOD

Ammonia -N

Ammonia -N

Ammonia -N

Ammonia -NBOD/CBOD

Solids

Fecal Coliform

AlkalinityAmmonia-NBOD/CBODColorConductivityDissolved OxygenFecal ColiformFlowFoamNitrateOdorSheenSludge Vol. IndexSolidsSolids (Settleable)SulfiteTemperatureTurbidityVolatile AcidsOrtho-phosphateOxidation Reduction Pot.pHResidual Disinfection Conc.

Current provider of analyses for systems with less than 100,000 gallonsOn-site Analysis Off-site Analysis

0 2020 4060 6040


Current provider of analysis for systems greater than 100,000 and less than 1 mgd

On-site Analysis Off-site Analysis

0 2020 4060 6040


Current provider of analysis for systems greater than 1 mgd and less than 5 mgd


0 2020 4060 6040


Current provider of analysis for systems greater than 5 mgd


0 2020 4060 6040

Profile Results

The profile of wastewater laboratory needs, proficiency and types is almost total dependent upon the size of the facility. The anticipated impact of the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Act (ELLA) directly relates to this fact. The profile shows the following:

1. Many wastewater systems do not know how the the ELAA will impact them. However, as the system size increases, the awareness of the impact and requirements of ELAA increases. Small wastewater systems (< 100,000 gal.) appear to know very little about ELAA and view its impact as significant.

2. A significant number of small wastewater systems (< 100,000) view ELAA as having a moderate to significant impact on their operations. However, the survey clearly demonstrates virtually all lab analyses for these systems is currently done off-site by a private laboratory. Based on this profile, ELLA will have no impact on small wastewater systems, which make up about ½ of all of the state’s wastewater systems.

3. Large wastewater systems (> 5 mgd.) apparently do not view ELLA has having any substantial impact on their operations. These systems indicated the new requirements will not result in contracting with off-site laboratories to conduct chemical and biological analyses. Their labs are staffed by full-time, degreed personnel and have appropriate facilities to meet the lab accreditation criteria.

4. Wastewater systems with flows of (>100,000 to 1 mgd and >1 mgd to 5 mgd) will be impacted the most by ELAA. The small flow group that represents small communities with approximately 250 EDUs with part-time lab personnel may be required to contract laboratory analyses to an off-site lab. It is important to note, many (40%) already contract the services for Ammonia-N, Solids and BOD-CBOD analyses. The larger systems (>1 mgd to 5 mgd) will also be impacted; however to a lesser degree. 5. The profile indicates the ELAA does not create any substantial personnel, operations or cost impacts for the smallest or largest wastewater system in the state. These sizes of systems represent approximately 60% of all wastewater systems. Wastewater systems (>100,000 to 1 mgd) will need to contract certain analyses to an off-site lab or upgrade their lab capabilities. These systems represent approximately 25% of the systems in the state. Wastewater systems (> 1 mgd to 5 mgd) will be moderately impacted; however a substantial number of these systems are currently contracting lab services to off-site labs.

Documents

Profile and Survey of Laboratory Proficiency Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems