2. National Water Quality Monitoring Council Methods and Data Comparability Board Report to Advisory Committee on Water Information September 10, 2003

3. How we work…caught in the act!

4. 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

5. Accomplishments “across the Board” 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 Because of its interdisciplinary nature the Methods Board has…

6. Challenges “across the Board” Members are volunteers – not always able to participate or respond in a timely manner Need for ground rules on how to operate under consensus Limited resources-- of all kinds Developing and implementing outreach and communication strategies

7. 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)

8. Getting to comparability –The 4 elements are the steps or building blocks moving us toward the goal of comparability. –Each of the Board’s workgroups is focused on one or more of these elements or steps –Effective and innovative outreach is an overarching need for each workgroup DQOs & MQOs Field Performance Lab Performance Data Reporting NEMI * PBMS * Accreditation * WQDE * Biology * Nutrients*New Technologies

9. Where are we going and how are we going to get there... develop and deliver products in the short term while thinking and planning strategically in the long term... DQOs & MQOs Field Performance Lab Performance Data Reporting

10. Accreditation Workgroup Workgroup Co- Chairs Bart Simmons, CA Department of Toxic Substance Control Merle Shockey, USGS

11. 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 analogy…two chefs, in two kitchens, using the same recipe… The same recipe in the hands of an inexperienced cook with less-than-terrific equipment is a riskier proposition. In the hands of a skilled, experienced cook, using fresh ingredients and with all the right equipment, a wonderful outcome will result. Both cooks, however, may be following the same “method”.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. Previously ACWI Adopted Recommendation Accreditation of Federal Laboratories 2 The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) is the Board’s 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.

15. 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

16. Previously Adopted Recommendation Accreditation of Federal Laboratories 3 The MDCB (and its parent organization, the NWQMC) will periodically re-evaluate NELAP’s 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

17. 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

18. National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI) Workgroup Workgroup Co-Chairs Dan Sullivan, USGS Co-Chair, Vacant

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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

22. Where to Find NEMI www.nemi.gov

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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?

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. Performance Based Systems (PBS) Workgroup Workgroup Chair Cliff Annis, Jr., Merck & Co., Inc.

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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Water Quality Data Elements (WQDE) Workgroup Workgroup Co- Chairs Chuck Job, USEPA LeAnne Astin, ICPRB Glenn Patterson, USGS

36. WQDE’s relationship to the framework -Who -Who collected and analyzed the data -What -What data were collected -When -When the data was collected and analyzed -Where -Where the data was collected -Why -Why the data was collected -How -How the data was collected and analyzed Data Reporting WQDE is a list of “core metadata,” facilitating comparability assessments, which tell us:

37. 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

38. 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

39. Biology Methods Workgroup Workgroup Co- Chairs Katherine Alben, NYS Department of Health Mike Miller, WI DNR

40. 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

41. 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.

42. 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)

43. New Technologies Workgroup Workgroup Chair Katherine Alben – NYS Department of Health

44. But wait…what about the impact of new technologies? different methods used at different times by different programs with different DQOs/MQOs…

45. Role of the Board with regard to 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

46. New Technologies Workgroup accomplishments –Provide guidance to NEMI homeland security effort. –Conducted sessions at the 3 rd 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. –provided methods to NEMI for new and advanced technologies.

47. 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?

48. Outreach Workgroup Workgroup Chair Dennis McChesney - USEPA

49. 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