National Water Quality Monitoring Council

1
National Water Quality Monitoring
Council
Methods and Data Comparability Board Report to
Advisory Committee on Water Information September
10, 2003
2
How we workcaught in the act!
3
Mission of the Board

• Create a framework for collaboration and
  comparability among programs by...

identifying, examining, and recommending
monitoring approaches that facilitate
collaboration and yield comparable data and
assessment results
4
Accomplishments across the Board
Because of its interdisciplinary nature the
Methods Board has
Provided an opportunity to bridge the gap between
water treatment for human consumption and natural
water resources, as well as the gap between human
and ecological health.
Leveraged the support of individual programs in
the federal, state, and private sectors. For
example NEMI provides the ability to compare
methods which allows the selection of methods
based on DQOs
5
Challenges across the Board
Members are volunteers not always able to
participate or respond in a timely manner
Developing and implementing outreach and
communication strategies
Need for ground rules on how to operate under
consensus
Limited resources-- of all kinds
6
Topics to be Discussed

• Update on Methods Board Activities
• Request that AWCI ask Federal Agencies and
  others to implement previously adopted
  recommendations
• Accreditation of federal laboratories
• NEMI
• Water Quality Data Elements (Jerry Diamond)
• On-line demonstration of NEMI (Larry Keith, Herb
  Brass)
• Discuss expert systems including NEMI-CBR
  (Larry Keith)

7
Getting to comparability

• The 4 elements are the steps or building blocks
  moving us toward the goal of comparability.
• Each of the Boards workgroups is focused on one
  or more of these elements or steps
• Effective and innovative outreach is an
  overarching need for each workgroup

8
Where are we going and how are we going to get
there...
use the framework and workgroup structure to...

• develop and deliver products in the short term
  while thinking and planning strategically in the
  long term...

9
Accreditation Workgroup
10
Why Accreditation?

• There has been the notion that following the
  method ensures accurate data. A method is
  simply one key component of generating reliable
  data. Consider an analogytwo chefs, in two
  kitchens, using the same recipe

In the hands of a skilled, experienced cook,
using fresh ingredients and with all the right
equipment, a wonderful outcome will result.

• The same recipe in the hands of an inexperienced
  cook with less-than-terrific equipment is a
  riskier proposition.

Both cooks, however, may be following the same
method.
11
Accreditation Workgroup accomplishments

• White Paper on the value of accreditation
• Issue Paper on the need for federal lab
  accreditation
• Independent coordination by Board members with
  INELA, NELAC, and ACWI
• Diverse representation on the workgroup was key
  to achieving consensus on recommendations

12
Previously ACWI Adopted Recommendation
Accreditation of Federal Laboratories
1
All federal agencies (and commercial laboratories
employed by federal agencies) performing
analytical water testing, as part of compliance
or ambient monitoring programs, be accredited
under a recognized program, in order to better
establish comparability of data and to meet the
needs of specific federal agency programs. Each
agency should evaluate the cost of implementing
this recommendation as it applies to their
individual situation.
13
Previously ACWI Adopted Recommendation
Accreditation of Federal Laboratories
2
The National Environmental Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NELAP) is the Boards
recommended program, because NELAP adequately
meets (or is taking measures that meet) the
broad needs of the majority of federal
laboratories performing water testing.
Specifically, it is focused on uniform
accreditation requirements across states (and
therefore, potentially reduces accreditation
costs for labs operating in several states), and
allows Federal as well as state accrediting
authorities.
14
Previously Adopted Recommendation Accreditation
of Federal Laboratories
2

• For NELAP to serve as a satisfactory
• accrediting program for federal laboratories,
• NELAP needs to continue its efforts to
• Obtain more state participation and reciprocity
• Address standards for ambient monitoring,
• field sample collection, and field
  measurements
• Promote the development of PBS implementation

15
Previously Adopted Recommendation Accreditation
of Federal Laboratories
3
The MDCB (and its parent organization, the NWQMC)
will periodically re-evaluate NELAPs suitability
to serve as a national accreditation program in
order (1) to review the status of their progress
in the aforementioned efforts, and (2) to
encourage state, federal, and private
participation in NELAP
16
Where are we going?

• Develop position paper on State laboratory
  accreditation - focus on issues/concerns
• Develop position paper and approach to
  implementing field accreditation
• Independent interaction by Board members with
  Institute for National Environmental Laboratory
  Accreditation (INELA) and NELAC adopt
  approaches and recommendations brought forward by
  MDCB members
• Presentations to INELA, NELAC, and ACWI at their
  upcoming meetings

17
National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI)
Workgroup
18
NEMI and NEMI-CBR

• The National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI)
  is a database of methods applicable for
  monitoring water for chemical and microbiological
  pollutants.
• Online searches at www.nemi.gov
• Endorsed by ACWI in 2001
• NEMI-CBR is a database of methods applicable for
  anti-terrorism use with chemical, biological, and
  radiological (CBR) agents.
• Password protected secure database uses NEMI
  algorithms to save time and money.
• Expert systems have been developed to help
  support the use of both databases.

19
ACWI Endorsement

• The Advisory Committee on Water Information
  (ACWI) endorses the continued development and
  timely delivery of NEMI as a vital tool to
  enhance the generation of comparable data of
  known quality, across all entities that conduct
  water quality monitoring. Use of NEMI will
  assist in the design of water quality monitoring
  programs, so that data quality objectives and
  measurement quality objectives are more readily
  achieved.Endorsement on May 16, 2001

20
NEMI accomplishments

• Public release October, 2002 announced by joint
  USGS/USEPA letter
• Over 40,000 visits since public release
• 600 Methods Currently in NEMI
• 235 EPA methods
• 149 USGS methods
• 32 DOE radiochemical methods
• 75 ASTM methods
• 59 Standard Methods methods
• 8 AOAC methods
• 43 private sector methods

21
Where to Find NEMI

• www.nemi.gov

22
Where are we going?

• Maintenance and upgrades to data base
• Contributions of chemical, microbiological and
  radiochemical methods by external parties using
  new online forms (150 in parking lot) focus on
  new and improved methods
• Developing an approach to add field sampling
  methods and forming a Workgroup
• Developed business rules and adding a number of
  biological methods

23
Where are we going?

• Adding water security methods partially
  password protected
• Adding remaining regulatory methods for drinking
  water and waste water (EMMI)
• Support expert system development (EMMA) using
  CRADA and homeland security funds (WATER)
• Methods for media in addition to water
  resources to be provided by non-water programs
  formation of external Steering Committee

24
NEMI Field Sampling Methods

• Form Workgroup to address identified methods
  types
• Routine water collection methods
• Routine water quality measurements
• Biological
• New technologies
• Microbiology
• Sediment
• Geomorphology/habitat

25
NEMI Field Sampling Methods

• Organizations to include in Workgroup
• Federal Agencies (USGS, EPA, NOAA, FWS)
• States (FL, NJ, others)
• Volunteers (PA, others)
• Tribes
• ASTM
• Standard Methods
• Professional organizations (NABS, WEF, AWWA,
  fisheries, others)
• International (Environment Canada, British
  Geological Survey, others)
• Private sector
• Academia
• Others -- suggestions?

26
NEMI CBR

• Create a central system for locating, evaluating,
  and retrieving analytical methods for chemical,
  biological, and radiochemical warfare agents in
  one federally managed location.
• Allows EPA Water Protection Task Force to meet
  immediate homeland security needs
• Costs minimized since NEMI database framework
  already developed
• Password protected site

27
Water Protection Objectives

• Methods that provide highly selective
  identification (low false positives and
  negatives) of target analytes as rapidly as
  possible
• Accuracy and precision of methods less
  important than confident identification of
  presence or absence
• Ability to confirm presence of target analytes

28
NEMI CBR Progress

• Refined NEMI fields added rapidity of
  analyses, method selectivity, and class
  selectivity
• Analytes already in NEMI have been revised to
  add these fields
• New CBR methods are being added and linked to
  method summary
• Expert system (similar to EMMA) being developed
  WATER will help users prioritize considerations
  and serve as a planning and training tool. Will
  recommend approach when analyte does not have a
  suspected identity

29
Performance Based Systems (PBS) Workgroup
30
What is PBS?

• A performance based system permits the use of any
  scientifically appropriate method that
  demonstrates the ability to meet established
  performance criteria and complies with specified
  data quality needs or requirements

For a performance based system to work, at least
5 darts have to hit the target...
Well-defined MQOs DQOs
Adequate supply of reference materials for method
validation
Known performance characteristics
Adequate training in development of MQOs
validation of methods
Validated or reference methods shown to meet
specific MQOs
31
PBS Workgroup accomplishments

• Reached consensus on conception and definition of
  PBS (issue paper published as National Council
  report)

• Developed and conducting pilot studies addressing
  certain PBS implementation issues. Studies
  involve federal, state, municipal, and private
  labs
• COD - Completed -- publish as a National Council
  report .
• Phosphorous Lab study completed
• Macroinvertebrates study begun in WI

32
Chemical Oxygen Demand Pilot

• Lab competence with two COD methods
• Analyses necessary to demonstrate appropriate
  performance of new method for matrices of
  interest
• Analyses necessary to demonstrate that
  performance is maintained over time
• Study completed and report available -- request
  ACWI review prior to publishing as a National
  Council report -- request by October 10

33
Where are we going?

• Developing further pilots to address PBS
  implementation issue
• -- Comparison of results using two total Nitrogen
  analytical methods in development
• Provide usable DQO guidance and promote the role
  of DQOs in water monitoring programs
• Draft Fact Sheet available on the Value of
  Comparability
• Provide paper on Defining and Assessing
  Comparability
• -- Compile and summarize results of previous
  comparability assessments

34
Water Quality Data Elements (WQDE) Workgroup
35
WQDEs relationship to the framework
WQDE is a list of core metadata, facilitating
comparability assessments, which tell us

• Who collected and analyzed the data
• What data were collected
• When the data was collected and analyzed
• Where the data was collected
• Why the data was collected
• How the data was collected and analyzed

36
WQDE Workgroup accomplishments

• A modular approach employed to develop and gain
  ACWI adoption of the Who, Where, When,
  Why WQDE lists and the What and How WQDE
  lists for Chemistry and Microbiology Draft Fact
  Sheet prepared.
• A biology WQDE workgroup was formed and draft
  lists for fish community and toxicity What and
  How have been developed and sent for review
• Fostered the development of eight pilot projects
  to test implementation concerns for a variety of
  conditions
• EPA has developed a draft implementation approach
  and published in Federal Register

37
Where are we going?

• Fully implement modular approach
• Develop and implement outreach strategies to gain
  general acceptance of WQDEs
• ACWI facilitate member use, conduct survey
• Complete pilot tests and prepare report to
  demonstrate use of WQDEs
• Developing WQDEs for field and biological methods
• Consider how to respond to EPA data standards
  proposal

38
Biology Methods Workgroup
39
Why a Biology Methods Workgroup?

• Wide interest in a framework for comparing
  biological methods, particularly field population
  (community methods)
• Biological methods create unique challenges in
  terms of defining method performance, data
  quality, and method comparability

40
Biology Methods Workgroup accomplishments

• Attracted wide interest from monitoring community
  Workgroup and Board increasingly viewed as
  coordination venue for a number of organizations

• PBS macro invertebrate pilot study and Biology
  WQDEs being developed in consultation with work
  group
• Bringing in new technologies as a priority to the
  Methods Board e.g., DNA probes, immunoassays,
  new algal pigment methods. A number of these
  methods have been included in NEMI.

41
Where are we going?

• Continue to provide guidance to derive
  performance characteristics for field
  population/community and toxicity methods and
  develop a template/business rules for inclusion
  in NEMI
• Involvement in taxonomic certification effort
• Develop a data dictionary for biological WQDEs
• Coordinate/conduct PBS pilot studies to help
  define comparability of biological methods,
  particularly field biological assessment methods
• Coordinate, communicate, and promote new
  biological technologies that appear promising for
  water monitoring (ecological and human health)

42
New Technologies Workgroup
43
But waitwhat about the impact of new
technologies?

• different methods used at
• different times by
• different programs with
• different DQOs/MQOs

change is constant!
44
Role of the Board with regardto new technologies

• Clearinghouse for analytical methods (NEMI)
• to recognize contributors, facilitate technology
  transfer, and support data comparability (without
  endorsement of specific methods)
• identify needs for new or improved monitoring
  techniques
• develop and promote guidelines to ensure methods
  and data comparability for the new methods

45
New Technologies Workgroup accomplishments

• provided methods to NEMI for new and advanced
  technologies.

• Conducted sessions at the 3rd National Monitoring
  Conference. Developed list of researchers in the
  field.
• Organized a session at IAGLR (6/22/03) on
  achieving comparability in monitoring for algae
  using new technologies.

• Provide guidance to NEMI homeland security effort.

46
Where are we going?

• Continue to provide methods to NEMI for new and
  advanced technologies.
• Examine different technologies for monitoring
  algae DQOs, MQOs, and comparability using case
  studies
• Prepare technical paper on New Technologies for
  Early Warning Monitoring focuses on probes and
  sensors.
• Additional suggestions?

47
Outreach Workgroup
48
Outreach products and plans

• Developed and distributed two newsletters
  (Across the Board).
• Website redesign and update of information is
  nearing completion
• Fact sheets developed and in review by National
  Council
• Coordinate Board participation in 2004 National
  Monitoring Conference
• Ongoing update of speakers bureau make
  products available for use by Board/Council
  members