METHODS AND DATA COMPARABILITY BOARD
AUGUST 30 – SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
A
total of 32 participants attended parts of the meeting either by phone or in
person. Federal agencies
represented included USEPA, USGS, NSCOE, NOAA, DOD, and DOE. States represented included Virginia, Delaware Basin (New
Jersey), Wisconsin, and New York. Other
monitoring interests represented were ASTM, Standard Methods, AMSA, CMA,
Argonne National Laboratory, Waste Policy Institute, ETCC, Dynecorp, Merck
Co., Hach Co., East Bay MUD, Montgomery Watson, Tetra Tech, and Catalyst.
NEMI
Workgroup
A
proposal/workplan will be prepared to describe a 3 phase approach to
implementing NEMI. A complete list of fields, tables, linkages for EMMI and
EMSD will be sent to Sullivan/House at USGS for use in preparing the workplan
draft. Nutrient and Biology Workgroups will send their NEMI fields to
Sullivan/House as soon as possible. The Workplan draft will be revised for
review by the entire workgroup by the end of October. Sullivan/House will send
the Workgroup a list of data elements for NEMI based on information received
from EMMI/EMSD.
It
will be necessary to ensure that the NEMI is consistent with the WQDE
Workgroups elements and definitions (data dictionary).
WQDE and Biology Workgroup will provide initial information for sample
collection methods needed by NEMI.
Nutrient
Methods Workgroup
NOAA
is initiating its own pilot for laboratory performance of nutrient methods
following a PBMS approach.
All
agreed that standard NEMI fields apply to nutrients as well.
Populating the performance fields is another matter.
Other fields previously identified were: (1) hazardous waste byproduct,
(2) date of inception/last revision, and (3) ambient vs. compliance sample. These could be incorporated into existing NEMI fields.
Tetra Tech will help populate fields for a few methods and distribute
for Board review by 10/30/99.
Rather
than design a nutrient pilot now, the following tasks will be done with Tetra
Tech’s help: (1) review and compile performance characteristics for
published nutrient methods; (2) identify concerns with nutrient method
practices and relate to issues such as TMDLs and EPA’s nutrient strategy;
(3) consider the type of DQOs and MQOs current nutrient methods are capable of
meeting; and (4) minimum QC requirements.
USGS
- DuPont CRADA
Bill
Battaglin presented a summary of results thus far on the herbicide study.
Over 200 samples in nine large and 69 smaller drainage basins in the
midwest were analyzed.
Ed
Furlong presented a summary of the method development process used to achieve
lower herbicide detection levels. Two
publications describing the methods have been written and approved and two
reports are planned. USGS is
currently working on methods for degradation products.
Bill will coordinate with Charlie to get next report out for Board
review.
Outreach
The
Workgroup reviewed and revised the letter that will be sent to various water
resource organizations introducing our website and requesting a link.
The table of organizations for letter distribution will be updated
based on contributions from Dunn, Peters, and Berger.
An email with the attached letter and table will be sent to Council and
Board members requesting additional organizations for the table.
A
link will be made from the public Board web site to the Conference 2000 site.
The public web site indexing will be increased and tested prior to the
next meeting. We should get logos from all Board participant organizations
for web site.
Peters will send copies of Board power point presentations to Tetra Tech so that they can prepare a Board overview power point presentation for Board or Council members to use. A Board display and fact sheet should be prepared for Conference 2000. The display should include a computer for web site demos and copies of Board publications and recruitment package. Printing and distribution of the Fact Sheet will require resources. The existing Tetra Tech work assignment includes Fact Sheet development.
We
should include a regular agenda item on presentations recently given. Email
Peters any presentations previously presented.
The
workgroup has developed a draft set of generic data elements.
A draft set of selection criteria were also circulated.
These materials have been developed with an eye to several existing
federal/state data systems. A set
of proposed selection criteria was circulated prior to the conference call as
a follow-up from the last meeting on June 23, 1999.
Jerry
Parr is offering a presentation
on PBMS. Andy and Jerry will discuss organizing a session/workshop on PBMS
which will include the Parr presentation and the MDCB “reservoir dog”
presentation. Larry Keith is also considering presenting a workshop on DQOs
and a presentation on NEMI. Chuck Job has submitted an abstract for a workshop
on WQDEs. Jerry Diamond will prepare an abstract for a presentation on the
biology Workgroup efforts. The Outreach Workgroup will discuss what should be
included in a Board display and the possibility of preparing a current Fact
Sheet on the Boards activities. We
need to finalize what other abstracts will be submitted on behalf of Board
activities. Abstracts are due
10/15/99.
A
key-note speaker for the conference still needs to be found.
Forward ideas to Charlie.
PBMS
Workgroup
We
need to publish latest version of the PBMS issue paper.
Jerry and Andy will explore options.
Nutrients
were mentioned as a possible pilot at the previous Board meeting in
Cincinnati. There is wide public
interest, in terms of the Clean Water Action Plan, TMDLs, and Nutrient
Criteria. The Workgroup therefore
initially pursued developing a pilot design for nutrients.
After more discussion, a nutrient pilot was considered to be perhaps
overly ambitious. Rick Dunn
suggested COD as a possible pilot because there’s an alternate proposed Hach
method (that reduces mercury waste components), that has been subjected to
EPA’s ATP process, and there are interested parties.
All agreed that a COD pilot was likely to be a quicker “success
story” for the Board than a nutrient pilot at this time.
Rick, Andy, Cliff, and Jerry will discuss the issues and draft a
potential pilot design for Board review by 10/30/99.
Matt explained that ETT can help set-up CRADAs for the Board. Specifically, they can: (1) develop the CRADA scope of work; (2) take care of letters of intent to get all participants working together; and (3) identify potential partners.
The
outline of the issue paper on federal lab accreditation has been annotated
with information sent from various sources.
A strategy was identified to complete a draft position paper.
The Workgroup addressed the EPA Performance testing/evaluation issue
assigned at the last Board meeting. There are 5 primary issues to address with
EPA: 1) re-evaluate proposed acceptance criteria evaluation mechanism, 2)
provide guidance to States on compounds not currently covered, 3) provide
guidance to NIST to ensure validity of their evaluation, 4) consider use of
more realistic concentrations, 5) consider enhancements to program to reflect
existing conditions. The
workgroup will write up these issues and share them with EPA. A Conference
call will be held with EPA and the Workgroup to discuss the issues. NELAC will
be sent the issues to determine their stance. Based on information from these
discussions the Workgroup will draft a short PE position paper.
Biological
Methods Workgroup
Mike
Miller discussed progress he has made on the field sampling method NEMI
database. He has so far
concentrated on wadeable stream benthic macroinvertebrate collection methods
although he compiled an extensive literature database for other types of
systems and fauna/flora. Tetra
Tech will assist Mike in finalizing fields and information for a few methods
by 9/30/99. Chris Ingersoll
reviewed his draft toxicity test database
It
was agreed that NEMI fields should be designed so that most of the maintenance
falls on the organization developing or putting out the method and not the
Board.
Tetra Tech will work with
Chris to finalize tox method fields by 9/30/99. Donna Francy reviewed progress made on microbiological
methods. Many of the NEMI fields
suggested by the Workgroup appear to apply to the Cryptosporidia and fecal coliform methods examined. Tetra Tech will
assist Donna in getting information into NEMI fields by 11/15/99.
Jerry will make up a matrix of tentative NEMI fields and examples of
information for different types of biological methods by 9/23/99.
NEMI fields need to be finalized by 9/30/99.
An EPA Workgroup, the Biology data standards committee, is attempting
to determine CAS numbers for Biology, based on the International Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS) framework. The
Biology Workgroup needs to coordinate with ITIS to specify
Board
Funding and Priorities
Priorities
appear to be appropriate. Bob
Berger can arrange discussions with WERF on PBMS pilots. It would be helpful to have a CRADA person there as well.
We need to have some information prior to the next Steering Committee
conference call 10/5/99.
Board
Business
Charlie
is updating the Board roster as some delegates have appointments ending soon.
A matrix for roster rotation/continuity will be developed by Charlie.
NNational
Methods and Data Comparability Board
Meeting Minutes
Denver, CO August 30 - September 1, 1999
Participants: Herb Brass, Merle Shockey, Charlie Peters, Ed Santoro, Richard Ayers, Bob Berger, Andy Eaton, Cliff Annis, Harold Aroudel, Chuck Spooner, Rick Dunn, Larry Keith, Matt Brinn, Ann Strong, Charlie Patton, Jerry Parr, Adriana Cantillo, Chuck Job, Robin Nissan, Elane Streets, Bernie Malo, Steve Moulton, Harry House, Mike Miller, Chris Ingersoll, Donna Francy, Jerry Diamond, Jim King, Al Driscoll, Bill Battaglin, Ed Furlong, Dan Sullivan (by phone)
The Agenda for this meeting is included in Attachment A.
Announcements
· Barbara Erickson and Bob Carlson have resigned as delegates of the Board, both for work-related reasons. Bob is willing to continue with work groups. We wish them both the best of luck.
· Merle is temporarily acting as laboratory director for the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver and will, therefore, need to step-down as Co-chair. Charlie Peters will take over the duties of Co-chair. In the interim, Tetra Tech will fill in for some of Charlie’s Executive Secretary duties.
· Abstracts for the National Water Quality Monitoring Conference in Austin, TX are due by October 15, 1999. The conference will be held April 25-27. Contact Charlie or Jerry for more information.
NELAC/ELAB Progress on PBMS
Jerry Parr gave a presentation on the current status of PBMS in NELAC and in EPA. A copy of the presentation will be available on the Board’s web site soon. Jerry emphasized that there are presently no rules for method validation, QC requirements, and other aspects closely related to PBMS. Herb noted that hard pilot data are needed to reduce or solve the polarized discussions concerning PBMS. In this vein, we need to get information from the new ASTM-D34 validation framework work group.
PBMS Workgroup
Reservoir Dog
We need to publish latest version of the PBMS issue paper. Jerry and Andy will explore options.
Pilots and Funding
Cliff contacted CMA regarding possible funding sources. Responses have not been very encouraging thus far. Merck might be willing to fund pilot studies. CRADAs appear to be a potentially useful and appropriate funding mechanism.
What is the goal of a Pilot PBMS study?
· Encourage use of better, cheaper, faster methods.
· Use data previously collected by other organizations.
· Eliminate nay-saying.
Success measures or “goals” identified in the PBMS position paper (reservoir dog) were:
· DQOs and MQOs established
· Validated method available
· Performance adequate for DQOs/MQOs
· Reference materials available
· Method ruggedness demonstrated
· Liability determination clarified
· Comparability of sampling methods for ambient monitoring.
Nutrients were mentioned as a possible pilot at the previous Board meeting in Cincinnati. There is wide public interest, in terms of the Clean Water Action Plan, TMDLs, and Nutrient Criteria. The Workgroup therefore initially pursued developing a pilot design for nutrients.
Scenario: Assume certain standard or action concentration (e.g., 10 ppb total phosphorus as in the Florida Everglades)
DQOs: (1) Identify if the standard is exceeded with 95% confidence.
(2) Detect a 2 ppb change in concentration over time with 95% confidence.
MQOs identified to meet DQOs were identified as follows:
Parameter |
MQO |
Sensitivity |
1 ppb |
Precision |
± 100% @ 1 ppb; ± 20% @ 10 ppb |
Bias |
80-120% @ 10 ppb; Detection - 200% @ 1 ppb |
Interferences |
5% false positives and false negatives @ 10 ppb 10% false positives and false negatives @ 1 ppb |
Applicability |
freshwater; with median TSS, TDS, pH, etc. values |
Range |
1 - 200 ppb |
All of the above MQOs take into account sampling as well as laboratory error. Sampling error includes that associated with preservation, handling, and storage.
For a PBMS pilot, we need to pick the best method and generate QC data to demonstrate a validated method that meets MQOs, or to demonstrate that there isn’t a validated method available.
How does one prove that a method meets MQOs?
Jerry Parr suggested the following analyses at a minimum:
2 spikes (in reagent water) @ 2 ppb; result ± 1 ppb
2 spikes (in reagent water) @ 10 ppb; result ± 1 ppb
2 spikes (in reagent water) @ 100-150 ppb; result ± 10 ppb
1 PE sample in “real life” matrix; result ± 1 ppb
The Workgroup offered the following additions:
1 sample (real matrix) that typically has 2-5 ppb; result ± 1 ppb
1 spike sample (real matrix) 5-10 ppb; result ± 1 ppb
The Office of Water ATP approach is somewhat different. It may be advisable to design a pilot that examines both types of approaches.
For a nutrient pilot, a CRADA could involve dischargers, state agencies, EPA region, WERF, AWWARF, and industry.
After more discussion, a nutrient pilot was considered to be perhaps overly ambitious. Rick Dunn suggested COD as a possible pilot because there’s an alternate proposed Hach method (that reduces mercury waste components), that has been subjected to EPA’s ATP process, and there are interested parties. All agreed that a COD pilot was likely to be a quicker “success story” for the Board than a nutrient pilot at this time. Rick, Andy, Cliff, and Jerry will discuss the issues and draft a potential pilot design for Board review by 10/30/99.
Matt explained that ETT can help set-up CRADAs for the Board. Specifically, they can:
· develop the CRADA scope of work
· take care of letters of intent to get all participants working together
· identify potential partners.
The outline of the issue paper on federal lab accreditation has been annotated with information sent from various sources. A strategy was identified to complete a draft position paper.
· A Draft of the abstract and sections 1 and 2 of paper will be prepared by Peters for review. These sections will be about 2 pages long.
· Ardourel (BQS, GD), Peters (BRD, NPS), Brass (EPA), Nissan (DOD), Verwolf (DOE), and Strong (COE) will provide information regarding types of analyses done by various Federal laboratories (compliance/ambient, range of analytes, emphasis) to Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech will review this information, canvas the internet for other Federal labs, and prepare a general 2 page summary of Federal lab efforts for section 3 of the paper.
· Tetra Tech will develop a definition of performance standards for water labs from the NELAC and E4 definitions as an introductory paragraph to section 4 of the paper. Malo (ASTM), Brass (EPA GLP) will provide information on standards in use by those programs and provide to Tetra Tech to summarize along with information already provided in outline. Tetra Tech will attempt to answer each of the 3 questions posed in the outline (primary users – regulatory, etc; Features – what targeted; merits/limitations) and compare similarities and differences between programs. This section will be about 7 pages long.
· Tetra Tech will draft section 5, a summary of current laboratory accreditation programs, from information in outline, from the internet, and from information Ardourel/Driscoll, Brass ((EPA Forensics), Simmons (NELAP) send. Answer 4 questions posed in the outline (primary users, features, costs, merits/limitations) for each program. Include discussion of double blinds? Section 5 draft will include about a half page for each program.
· After these section drafts are prepared (by next Board meeting) the work group will revise and draft section 6 – recommendations for federal lab accreditation.
The Work group addressed the EPA Performance testing/evaluation issue assigned at the last Board meeting. There are 5 primary issues to address with EPA: 1) re-evaluate proposed acceptance criteria evaluation mechanism, 2) provide guidance to States on compounds not currently covered, 3) provide guidance to NIST to ensure validity of their evaluation, 4) consider use of more realistic concentrations, 5) consider enhancements to program to reflect existing conditions.
The workgroup will write up these issues and share them with EPA. A Conference call will be held with EPA and the work group to discuss the issues. NELAC will be sent the issues to determine their stance. Based on information from these discussions the work group will draft a short PE position paper.
Biological Methods Workgroup
Field Sampling Methods
Mike Miller discussed progress he has made on the field sampling method NEMI database. He has so far concentrated on wadeable stream benthic macroinvertebrate collection methods although he compiled an extensive literature database for other types of systems and fauna/flora. Eventually, we need to expand the NEMI-type database for estuarine/marine systems and large rivers.
Chuck Spooner will send Mike and Ed Santoro estuarine/marine EPA methods.
For wadeable streams, Mike indicated that the NEMI database will focus on grab samplers, kick-nets, and artificial substrates as these are the most commonly used methods. He suggested that processing time be used as a field in addition to holding time. Alternatively, processing time can be incorporated into the Effort category/field. Chuck noted that the CWAP specifies many coastal issues and the Council has an active workgroup in that area. We need to coordinate activities with the Council Workgroup down the road. Tetra Tech will assist Mike in finalizing fields and information for a few methods by 9/30/99.
Chris Ingersoll reviewed his draft toxicity test database. He noted that many specifics of the method have changed due to updates and one needs to be sure the methods in the database are current. His experience suggests a large database maintenance cost. It was agreed that NEMI fields should be designed so that most of the maintenance falls on the organization developing or putting out the method and not the Board. However, we still need to collect information on contacts for method updating and caution the user on accuracy of information, give the user contacts in the database. For ruggedness in the database, could indicate whether method was subjected to inter-laboratory testing (yes or no). Precision and sensitivity are still problematic fields. Tetra Tech will work with Chris to finalize the fields by 9/30/99.
Donna Francy reviewed progress made on microbiological methods. Many of the NEMI fields suggested by the Workgroup appear to apply to the Cryptosporidia and fecal coliform methods examined. Much of the information on the comments section can be moved to fields such as Effort/Relative Cost, interferences, or method specific requirements. For analytical capability required in the method, may be useful to categorize methods in steps between presence/absence up to quantitative. Tetra Tech will assist Donna in getting information into NEMI fields by 9/30/99.
NEMI fields considered for all biological methods thus far are: (1) parameter, (2) species, (3) method source, date/version, (4) endpoint, (5) units, (6) method description, (7) matrices, (8) sensitivity, (9) interferences, (10) method requirements**, (11) type of sample?, (12) precision*, (13) sample preservation, (14) holding time, (15) sample preparation, (16) QC requirements**, (17) ruggedness, (18) relative cost/effort/expertise-training, (19) references/contacts.
_________
* difficult fields to populate
** fields that may need the most updating
Jerry will make up a matrix of tentative NEMI fields and examples of information for different types of biological methods by 9/23/99. NEMI fields need to be finalized by 9/30/99.
Merle shared an email he received concerning benthic invertebrate field test comparisons between emap/remap and nawqa protocols in the Western Region. The Biology Workgroup needs to follow up on this.
An EPA work group, the Biology data standards committee, is attempting to determine CAS numbers for Biology, based on the International Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) framework. The Biology Workgroup needs to coordinate with ITIS to specify taxonomic codes for species as appropriate.
NEMI Work Group
The Workgroup discussed background of the NEMI concept and the relationship to EMMI and EMSD. A proposal/workplan will be prepared to describe a 3 phase approach to implementing NEMI. A complete list of fields, tables, linkages for EMMI and EMSD will be sent to Sullivan/House at USGS for use in preparing the workplan draft. Nutrient and Biology work groups will send their NEMI fields to Sullivan/House as soon as possible. The Workplan draft will be revised for review by the entire workgroup by the end of October. Sullivan/House will send the work group a list of data elements for NEMI based on information received from EMMI/EMSD. Updates will be made on about a semi annual basis once initially populated. Only about 350 water laboratory analytical methods (about 1600 exist) will be included in this workplan.
Discussed the 3 phases of the workplan:
1) database design, data dictionary, move data in, add Discover tool , deliver prototype for review and revision.
2) Add more data, final modifications to search approach, determine where to house the database and how to maintain it.
3) Add more data, and perhaps move NEMI to a new server. Outline the NEMI maintenance approach.
The workplan will be written for FY00 and FY01.
In Phase I, there needs to be coordination between Biology, Nutrients, Radiation Methods, and NEMI to work out the data structure. For the final workplan, need to include a brief introduction describing what NEMI is and why the need, as well as timeline and costs by 9/30. We need to be honest about implications for future costs in Phase 3 (e.g., maintenance costs). Perhaps give a range of costs for Phase 3.
Establishing and maintaining hot links in NEMI will be problematic. This typically requires a lot of upkeep because link addresses change so frequently.
Steering Committee will help guide NEMI pilot implementation – House, Sullivan, Keith, King, Thompson, Streets/Scandora, Peters, Brass, Spooner plus any other groups providing funding.
WPI has a small EPA grant to begin work on field analytical methods. Field analytical and sample collection methods will be added in a future draft, Other matrixes will be added after that.
Workgroup will need to develop consensus algorithms/approaches to populating some of the fields. A NEMI data dictionary needs to be prepared.
There is $75 to $100 K available to work on NEMI this year. More may be available from ASTM, WERF, AWWARF, and other sources. Malo will provide a template for mini proposal needed by ASTM.
It will be necessary to ensure that the NEMI is consistent with the WQDE work groups elements and definitions (data dictionary). WQDE and Biology work group will provide initial information for sample collection methods needed by NEMI.
The Board and the NEMI workgroup will maintain control of what methods are added to NEMI. Methods for NEMI must be documented in the literature.
Nutrient Methods Workgroup
Adriana noted that NOAA is working with NRC Canada that supplies certified stable reference materials for nutrients in seawater. NOAA is initiating its own pilot for laboratory performance of nutrient methods following a PBMS approach. Labs choose the method they will use given a certain known range of nutrient concentrations and salinity. Salinity methods/measures, Adriana noted, are another issue.
Profound statement: You get much better cooperation on analytical work between nations than you do between states. Ed Santoro
All agreed that standard NEMI fields apply to nutrients as well. Populating the performance fields is another matter. Other fields previously identified were: (1) hazardous waste byproduct, (2) date of inception/last revision, and (3) ambient vs. compliance sample. These could be incorporated into existing NEMI fields.
Tetra Tech will help populate fields for a few methods and distribute for Board review by 10/15/99.
Rather than design a nutrient pilot now, the following tasks will be done with Tetra Tech’s help: (1) review and compile performance characteristics for published nutrient methods; (2) identify concerns with nutrient method practices and relate to issues such as TMDLs and EPA’s nutrient strategy; (3) consider the type of DQOs and MQOs current nutrient methods are capable of meeting; and (4) minimum QC requirements.
Several other ideas were mentioned as activities for the nutrient focus. Pre-Pilot comparing standard practices for measuring phosphorus against standards: How many samples are needed to meet DQOs?
· Study on filtration/chilling as alternative preservative
· Nutrients chapter for criteria strategy and review of methods
· Nutrient DQOs and TMDLs
· Take WI pilot further
· Develop an issue paper to evaluate the need for a PBMS nutrient study focused on TMDLs.
· Review how have methods been validated historically
· Establish reference methods via literature search
· Performance of alkaline persulfate versus kjeldahl nitrogen
Other possible tasks for the work group to pursue will be compiled and sent to nutrients work group to determine interest level and whether or not to continue as a work group at this time.
USGS - DuPont CRADA
Bill Battaglin presented a summary of results thus far on the herbicide study. Over 200 samples in nine large and 69 smaller drainage basins in the midwest were analyzed. Each site was sampled twice — right after a rainfall event when stream flow exceeded the 50th percentile. Stream samples had more detects than groundwater samples but most DuPont herbicides were relatively low in concentration. Other, more widely used herbicides such as atrazine, alachlor, and acetochlor were more common and in higher concentration. Glyphosate herbicides (Monsanto) appear to be taking over more market share — less DuPont herbicide being used which may account for some of the low concentrations observed. Bill will get Charlie a copy of this presentation for distribution on the Board web site.
Ed Furlong presented a summary of the method development process used to achieve lower herbicide detection levels. Two publications describing the methods have been written and approved and two reports are planned. USGS is currently working on methods for degradation products. Bill will coordinate with Charlie to get next report out for Board review.
The Workgroup reviewed and revised the letter that will be sent to various water resource organizations introducing our website and requesting a link.
The table of organizations for letter distribution will be updated based on contributions from Dunn, Peters, and Berger. An email with the attached letter and table will be sent to Council and Board members requesting additional organizations for the table. After the table is completed and the letters sent, the outreach work group will prioritize the organizations and make follow-up phone calls.
A link will be made from the public Board web site to the Conference 2000 site.
Board members should send any newsletters, publications, proceedings, presentations, etc prepared on Board activities to Peters for inclusion on the Public website.
Peters will send copies of Board power point presentations to Tetra Tech so that they can prepare a Board overview power point presentation for Board or Council members to use.
A Board display and fact sheet should be prepared for Conference 2000. The display should include a computer for web site demos and copies of Board publications and recruitment package. Printing and distribution of the Fact Sheet will require resources. The existing Tetra Tech work assignment includes Fact Sheet development.
The public web site indexing will be increased and tested prior to the next meeting.
Board members should provide information on pertinent upcoming meetings and conferences to Peters for distribution to the Board.
We should include a regular agenda item on presentations recently given. Email Peters any presentations previously presented.
The Board Outreach Workgroup needs to meet with the Council Outreach workgroup to determine how best to coordinate efforts.
We should get logos from all Board participant organizations for web site.
Water Quality Data Elements Committee — Conference Call Summary (Aug. 31, 1999)
The workgroup has developed a draft set of generic data elements. A draft set of selection criteria were also circulated. These materials have been developed with an eye to several existing federal/state data systems. A list with several of these data systems is shown below. The bold-faced abbreviations or acronyms are used in the subsequent summary.
Select Data Systems or Initiatives
These have been used to define current working lists of data elements and criteria or could be used for comparison purposes to refine notions of a “core” list of elements and criteria.
NWIS (or USGS)
USGS National Water Information System II replaces NWIS I and the WATSTORE system. A major source of flow and other hydrology data. See list included below from Glenn Patterson. Also see the overview at <http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/watershed/Proceed/briggs.html>. There is a WEB-based version of NWIS (NWIS-W) at this url <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis‑w/US/>.USGS Contact: Alan Lumb
STORET
Focus is on “modernized STORET” as opposed to “legacy” STORET (similar to USGS and NWIS versus WATSTORE). EPA preparing a data elements summary list. Goos background information at the following url <http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/STORET/descript.html>
ITFM
Useful Information in final reports, especially in several Appendices (e.g, Appendix M). On the WEB at the following url <http://h2o.usgs.gov/public/wicp/appendixes/index.html>.
MSDE
Minimum Data for Groundwater Data. Contact C. Job.
National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD)
Required under SWA Reauthorization. Overview at the following url <http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/standard/pp/ncodpp.html>. Contact: C. Jobs
Unregulated Contaminant (Monitoring) Rule (UCM or UCMR)
SDWA also requires revisions of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) — information at the following url <http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/standard/pp/ucmpp.html>. Contact: C. Job.
CALFED
The CALFED Bay‑Delta Program, a cooperative effort among state and federal agencies and California’s environmental, urban and agricultural communities, was initiated in 1995 to address environmental and water management problems for the Bay‑Delta system. Overview at the following url <http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/calfed.html>. EPA Region 9 for contact.
Section 319 National Monitoring Program (NPS 319)
The Section 319 National Monitoring Program projects comprise a small subset of NPS pollution control projects funded under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act as amended in 1987. The goal of the program is to support 20 to 30 watershed projects nationwide that meet a minimum set of project planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation requirements designed to lead to successful documentation of project effectiveness with respect to water quality protection or improvement. Overview at the following url <http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/sec319.html>
Permit Compliance System (PCS)
EPA OECA. Regulatory enforcement oriented. “Monitoring Data” components abstracted in several other databases and in BASINS.
EMAP — contact: Bob Shepanek, ORD
Chesapeake Bay Program. Contact: Ricky Banner/C. Spooner. A list (data element dictionary) available on some WEB page — but Spooner will check to see if this is their most current list.
Other large Regional./State System?? E.g., from TVA or efforts in South Florida?
NEMI (National Environmental Monitoring Initiative or Index)
National Environmental Monitoring Initiative aims to integrate and coordinate environmental monitoring and related research through government and private‑sector collaboration, in order to enhance the utility of existing networks and programs. Development of the National Environmental Monitoring Initiative is under the leadership of the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources, in the White House Office of Science &Technology Policy. An overview of 34-35 federal systems is available. <http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/welcome.html>
A
set of proposed selection criteria was circulated prior to the conference call
as a follow-up from the last meeting on June 23, 1999. This draft list is given below:
Selection Criteria for "Core" Water Quality Data Elements
The Water Quality Data Elements Committee developed proposed selection criteria for "core" water quality data elements on June 23, 1999, as follows:
The purpose of the selection criteria is to allow comparison with other data sets at the level of the sample test result by:
(1) Providing the answer to or creating the possibility to answer the basic questions of:
a. What is being measured? (Perhaps overlaps with f below?)
b. What is the constituent's concentration?
c. Where was the sample taken?
d. When was the sample taken?
e. What is the type of water source? (e.g., waterbody type; surface water versus groundwater)
f. Is there co-occurrence with other chemical, physical or microbiological parameters?
g. Why was the sample collected?
h. How was the sample obtained?
i. What is the level of confidence in the reported results for the range of methods used, including, at a minimum, QA/QC data? (And how this would apply to derived measures or metrics?)
(2) Identifying the originating organization (i.e., allowing the possibility of request for additional data) (or changes in previous data entries)
Some points were then raised.
Some were concerned that the Committee define its purpose as sticking to the definition of a set of CORE elements (especially for data elements). If the list was too large (for instance, some draft materials would produce a list with about 63 data elements), then this would put people off and make it harder to get buy-in. Others thought this was a reasonable idea as an ultimate goal — but at this time its was perhaps better not to worry too much about immediately pruning down the list(s). The draft list(s) should be compared against a set of actual major data systems to see how to pick a cut-off point. Some felt that certain existing lists/systems were already pretty close to a set of core elements (e.g., maybe NCOD?).
The Workgroup noted that lists of elements/criteria should make it easy to tell if a site were a “clean” site (e.g., an reactively undisturbed “reference” site). The aim also seems to be to include both “natural” waters as well as treated water.
A set of “minimum data elements” was prepared by the USGS based on their NWIS data system. This data element summary is included in Attachment B.
National Water Quality Monitoring Conference
Jerry Parr is offering a presentation on PBMS. Andy and Jerry will discuss organizing a session/workshop on PBMS which will include the Parr presentation and the MDCB “reservoir dog” presentation. Larry Keith is also considering presenting a workshop on DQOs and a presentation on NEMI. Chuck Job has submitted an abstract for a workshop on WQDEs. Jerry Diamond will prepare an abstract for a presentation on the biology work group efforts. The Outreach work group will discuss what should be included in a Board display and the possibility of preparing a current Fact Sheet on the Boards activities. We need to finalize what other abstracts will be submitted on behalf of Board activities. Abstracts are due 10/15/99. Charlie indicated that we may need to review up to 20 abstracts on methods issues. The Steering Committee will coordinate the review of abstracts as needed.
We should encourage NELAC to submit abstracts. Bart Simmons may be a good presenter or could help coordinate participation by NELAC. Charlie will contact Bart and also contact NELAC to see if they could link to the conference on their web site. Charlie Patton may do a paper on nutrient methods. Could use abstracts on the following:
NEMI framework for biological methods
DQO process for biological methods
NEMI database and purpose
Data elements framework and purpose
Plenary paper on defining method comparability-process, ideas, framework that need to be present to ensure comparable monitoring data.
Should use the conference to pull in new people, organizations, especially southwest interests.
A key-note speaker for the conference still needs to be found. Forward ideas to Charlie.
Board Funding and Priorities
Priorities appear to be appropriate. Bob Berger can arrange discussions with WERF on PBMS pilots. It would be helpful to have a CRADA person there as well. We need to have some information prior to the next Steering Committee conference call 10/5/99.
Chuck suggested that pilots might be higher priority than NEMI in terms of building public support. We need to build excitement before building obligations. Current Board priorities as submitted to the Council are: NEMI, PBMS Pilot, Accreditation Paper, Website, biology and nutrient workplans for pilots.
Cliff noted that the NWQM conference needs to convey that the Board is a collaboration of organizations and that’s how change can happen.
Jerry is pursuing a WERF RFP that involves, among other things, setting DQOs for biological assessments and Effluent Toxicity testing. He suggested involving the Board as a peer reviewer in the project. Jerry, Charlie, and Herb will discuss this further.
Possible contributors to a nutrient CRADA include WERF, national pork producers, broiler council, national assn of state dept of agriculture, AWWARF, EPA – nutrient criteria strategy, USGS – NAWQA, ASWIPCA, Phosphorous mining, fertilizer/agricultural chemical association, NRCS, Dairy and Cattlemans Association, and Instrument manufacturers. Also, it may be useful to look into SERDP.gov as a possible funding mechanism.
Board Business
Minutes from last Board meeting in Cincinnati should be available soon. Charlie is updating the Board roster as some delegates have appointments ending soon. A matrix for roster rotation/continuity will be developed by Charlie. Chuck encouraged keeping delegates on if at all possible for continuity and efficiency. Bob Berger said that he would need to go off the Board after his 2-year term but will be able to serve on workgroups and conference calls.
Roundtable
Prefer to have Workgroup meeting times staggered to avoid conflicts.
Should there be a nutrients workgroup? The Board needs a nutrient focus but most participants felt that it was probably unnecessary to have a separate workgroup.
Need to stay flexible and revise priorities and organizational framework as needed.
Tetra Tech could use more specific guidance from Board on priorities and tasks to serve the Board better.
Do we need a separate biology workgroup or just a biology focus? We could use more expertise at the table for workgroup meetings.
Encourage greater participation from experts in the area where meetings are held to further cooperation, buy-in, and better products.
Need more state involvement with the Board. Identify value added for pilots, etc., particularly for states.
O:\Fy1999
(Oct. 98 on)\Monitoring\C800‑11‑02 (Minutes)\Minutes_8_30_99.wpd
APPENDIX A
Interagency
Methods and Data Comparability Board
August
30th – September 1st 1999 Meeting Agenda
USGS
National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL)
Denver
Federal Center
Meeting Goals:
·
Develop
Workgroup funding proposals and related contacts
·
Prepare
Federal Lab Accreditation position paper
·
Prepare
draft letter to EPA concerning performance evaluation
·
Develop
PBMS Pilot Test ideas
·
Refine
NEMI workplan, position paper and next steps
·
Develop
distribution list for public Web site
·
Revise
letter to organizations concerning website links
·
Develop
“Core” WQDE
·
DuPont
CRADA update
·
Determine
Board role in the 2000 NWQM Conference and abstracts to prepare for submittal
·
Develop
FY00 Delegates and Alternates roster
Conference
call in phone number – 703 648 4848
(access codes for each session provided below)
August 30th,
Monday
13:00
–13:30 Welcome/Introductions,
discuss agenda
Training Room, Charlie notetaker
13:30 – 14:00 NELAP Presentation Jerry Parr Training Room, Charlie notetaker
14:00
– 17:30 Accreditation
Workgroup Meeting
Main Conf
Room, Charlie
notetaker, 3 conf lines -40780
14:00
– 17:30 PBMS
Workgroup Meeting
Training Room, Jerry notetaker, 3 conf lines -40781
08:00
– 08:15 Discuss
Meeting Objectives
Training
Room
08:15 – 11:15 NEMI Workgroup Meeting Main Conf Room, Charlie notetaker, internet access, 5 conf lines -40785
08:15 – 11:15 Biology Workgroup Meeting Training Room Room, Jerry notetaker, 5 conf lines -40786
11:15
– 13:00 NWQL
Tour
13:00
– 13:30 Order in
working lunch
Training Room
13:30
– 14:30 CRADA
Presentations
Training Room,
Charlie notetaker
Concentrations of Sulfonamide, and Imadazolinone Herbicides in Storm Runoff
from 70 streams, outflow from 5 Reservoirs and groundwater from 25 wells in
the Midwestern USA, 1998 - Bill Battaglin
Routine determination of sulfonylurea, imadazolinone, and sulfonamide herbicides at nanograms-per-liter concentrations by solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry – Ed Furlong
14:30
- 17:30 Outreach
Workgroup Meeting
Conf Room D1, Charlie notetaker, 3 conference lines - 40782
14:30
– 17:30 WQDE
Workgroup Meeting
Main Conf
Room, Chuck Job notetaker, 10 conference lines -40783
14:30
– 17:30 Nutrients
Workgroup Meeting
Training Room,
Jerry notetaker, 3 conference lines -40784
17:30
Adjourn
08:00
– 09:00 Workgroup
follow up meetings/coordinated meetings
Main Conf Room, Training Room, Conf Room D1
09:00 – 10:00 NWQL QAQC activities -Terry Shertz
Training room, Charlie notetaker
10:00
– 12:00 Workgroup
report backs
Training
Room, Charlie notetaker
12:00
– 13:00 Order
in working Lunch
13:00
– 14:00 Discuss
Boards involvement in 2000 NWQM Conference
Training
Room, Charlie notetaker
14:00
– 15:00 Discuss
Board Funding
Training
Room, Charlie notetaker
15:00
– 16:00 Board
Business
Training Room,
Charlie notetaker
16:00
– 16:30 Roundtable
Training Room,
Charlie notetaker
16:30
Adjourn
Number
at the NWQL where you can be reached : 303 236 2000
APPENDIX
B
Contact: Glenn G. Patterson, Hydrologist
SUGGESTED MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS
BASED ON US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM
AND THE NATIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
(July1, 1999)
A. INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE
1. Site name
Definition: Name of sampling site
Examples: Pine Creek near Hillsboro; Mill Valley Municipal Well no. 3;
Davis Spring near Simpsonville, Sam Turner domestic well
2. Latitude
3. Longitude
4. Lat‑Long accuracy
Definition: Numeric code to designate the degree of accuracy of the
Lat‑Long
5. Site type
Definition: The location type for the site
Examples: Stream, well, spring, distribution system, lake, ocean,
canal
6. Primary use of site
Definition: Primary reason for the site's existence, or primary use of
the water
Examples: Contamination monitoring well, public supply well, streamflow
gage
7. Raw or treated
Definition: Designation as to whether the sampled water is raw or treated
ADDITIONAL DATA ELEMENTS FOR WELLS
8. Depth to top of uppermost open interval
Definition: Distance, in feet, from top of casing to top of upper
screen or open interval
9. Depth to bottom of lowermost open interval
Definition: Distance, in feet, from top of casing to bottom of lowermost
screen or open interval
10. Elevation of top of casing
11. Elevation accuracy
B. INFORMATION ABOUT THE SAMPLE
1. Sampling entity identification
Definition: Name of the organization responsible for obtaining the
sample
Example: U.S. Geological Survey
2. Begin date
Definition: Date withdrawal of water for this sample commenced
3. End date
Definition: Date withdrawal of water for this sample ended
4. Sampling depth
Definition: Depth, in feet below top of casing or land surface, to
point at which sample was withdrawn, or designation for depth‑integrated
sample.
5. Reason for sampling
Definition: Reason for taking the sample
Examples: Contaminant monitoring, State ambient network, compliance
monitoring, trip blank
6. Sampling method
Definition: Method used to obtain the sample
Examples: Automatic sampler, grab sample, 24‑hour composite, isokinetic
sampler
INFORMATION ABOUT THE ANALYSIS
1. Filtered or unfiltered
2. Parameter name/code
3. Parameter value and units
4. Data‑quality indicator
Definition: Code to designate accuracy of the parameter value
5. Date of analysis
6. Name of lab
7. Method code
8. Minimum detection level
The Committee then went element-by-element through a table of proposed data elements. Comments on some of the items are indicated in yellow-line. In the last column of the table, Committee members filled in applicable SELECTION CRITERIA. For instance, an entry such as “1c” would refer to the criterion (see list above): “Where was the sample taken?” Examples of actual data systems were also added in this column. The original table contained 47 data element “rows.” Additional data elements were discussed tapping other lists or materials — which would bring the total number of data elements up to around 63. A few of these “extra” items are noted at the end of the table.
TABLE
1 Discussion
Draft
1/22/99 Recommended Data Elements for Water
Quality Monitoring Results |
*
ITFM Appendix M Recom-mended
Data Elements |
Selction Criteria Check-off
Column (refer
to attached criteria) |
||
# |
Data
Element |
Definition |
Releted
Reference Name |
Write
in applicable criteria |
1 |
Sampling Station/Facility Identification Number |
The code used to identify each sampling station/facility. The code begins with the standard two-character postal State abbreviation; the remaining seven (?) characters are unique to each sampling station/facility. The same identification number must be used consistently through the history of monitoring to represent the sampling station/facility. |
Site name, Site number |
1c 1f |
2 |
Sampling Station/Facility Type |
The location type represented by the sample. The valid choices are: (a) Finished/treated drinking water (i) Finished Water from treatment system (ii) Entry Point to the distribution system after treatment (iii) Within the Distribution System (iv) End of the Distribution line with longest residence time (v) Household/drinking water tap (vi) Unknown (vii) Other (b) Ambient/Raw/untreated water (i) Dedicated monitoring station (A) Stream (B) Lake (C) Wetland (D) Reservoir (E) Ocean-coastal (F) Ocean-open (G) Well (H) Spring (I) Precipitation (ii) Temporary monitoring station (A) Stream (B) Lake (C) Wetland (D) Reservoir (E) Ocean-coastal (F) Ocean-open (G) Well (H) Spring (G) Precipitation (c) Biological (i) Point (ii) Transect |
Site type |
1e 1c 1h UCM USGS MSDE |
3 |
Reason for Sample Collection |
Regulatory: (a) Safe Drinking Water Act - Regulated Contaminant Compliance (b) Safe Drinking Water Act - Unregulated Contaminant (c) Clean Water Act (i) Routine Compliance (ii) Pollution Event (iii) Storm Event (c) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (i) Reconnaissance (ii) Routine Compliance (iii) Pollution Event (d) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (i) Reconnaissance (ii) Routine Compliance (iii) Pollution Event (e) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (i) Reconnaissance (ii) Routine Compliance (iii) Pollution Event (f) Food Quality Protection Act (g) Other Non-regulatory: (h) National Water Quality Assessment (US Geological Survey) (i) Reconnaissance (ii)Pollution event (iii) Storm Event (i) State Water Quality Assessment (Include pick list of States) (i) Reconnaissance (ii)Pollution event (iii) Storm Event (j) Research (k) Volunteer (l) Other (ii) Pollution event (iii) Storm event |
|
1a |
4 |
Water Source Type (Perhaps collapse into #2 ???) |
The source type represented by the sample. The valid choices are: (a) Surface water. (b) Ground water. (c) Precipitation/Atmospheric |
Water body type |
1e UCM |
5 |
Water Body/Aquifer Name |
Name of the lake, stream, river, estuary, aquifer or other water feature related to the physical site. |
Water Body Name/ Aquifer Name |
1e MSDE 1c |
6 |
River Reach Code |
Code representing a section of a river or stream defined by the components of the River Reach File 3 (RF3) file. |
USEPA River Reach Code |
1e 1a |
7 |
Sample medium code* |
Alphanumeric code that designates the environmental material about which results are reported from either direct observation or collected samples; for example, water, tissue, and/or sediment. |
Sample medium code |
1a NEMI |
8 |
Substrate Code* |
Code that represents the material to which sessile organisms are attached. |
Substrate Code |
1a |
9 |
Sample Identification number (Perhaps could be “created” by combining other data elements ??) |
A unique identifier assigned by the sampler (or sampling organization) for each sample. |
Sample Number |
1d 1f UCM |
10 |
Sample Collection Date |
Date sample was collected, reported as two digit month, two digit day and four digit year. |
Collection end date |
1d 1f UCM USGS MSDE |
11 |
Sample Collection Method |
The method used to collect the sample. |
Sample Collection Method |
1h 1c USGS NEMI |
12 |
Sample Collection Depth |
The depth at which a sample was collected fro a well or other source of water. |
Sample Depth |
MSDE |
13 |
Collection Depth Unit of Measure |
The Unit of Measure (UOM) for the depth at which a sample was collected from a well or other source of water. |
|
1i |
14 |
Number of Samples Composited |
Indicates the number of samples combined to produce the composite |
|
1h 1i |
15 |
Sample Type |
The
type of sample collected. Permitted
values include: (a) Reference Sample (b) Field Sample (standard sample) (c) Confirmation Sample (d) Field Blank (e) Equipment Blank (f) Split Sample (g) Replicate Sample (h) Spiked Sample |
QC Sample type |
|
16 |
Taxonomic Key* |
Alphanumeric designation for the unique, official scientific name of a biological organism and its position in the taxonomic nomenclature hierarchy. |
Taxo-nomic Key |
|
17 |
Biological part code* |
Alphanumeric code that designates the identification of the specific anatomical part of an organism that is being measured; for example, liver, heart, cell wall, or whole organism. |
Biological part code |
|
18 |
Latitude of Sampling Station/Facility |
The location of each source intake, well or wellfield centroid, and treatment plant associated with a sample expressed as decimal degrees |
|
|
19 |
Longitude of Sampling Station/Facility |
The location of each source intake, well or wellfield centroid, and treatment plant associated with a sample expressed as decimal degrees |
|
|
20 |
Latitude/Longitude Accuracy* |
Quantitative measurement of the amount of deviation from true value present in a measurement that describes the correctness of a measurement. |
Latitude/ Longitude Accuracy |
|
21 |
Latitude/Longitude Method* |
Procedure used to determine the latitude and longitude, includes the reference datum. |
Latitude/ Longitude Method* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
Altitude* |
Vertical distance from the National Reference Datum to the land surface, reference mark, or measuring point at the site (feet or meters). |
Altitude |
|
23 |
Altitude Method* |
Method used to determine the altitude value, including the National Reference Datum on which the altitude is based. |
Altitude Method |
|
24 |
Bottom Depth* (combine with 24 ??) |
Depth of water column at station, measured from the surface of the water to the sediment/water interface. |
Bottom Depth |
|
25 |
Well Depth* |
Depth of the completed well below the land surface, in feet or meters. |
Well Depth |
MSDE |
26 |
Well open interval, bottom* |
Bottom of the open or screened interval of the well (feet or meters below land surface). |
Well open interval, bottom |
1c MSDE USGS |
27 |
Well open interval, top* |
Top of the open or screened interval of the well (feet or meters below land surface). |
Well open interval, top |
1c MSDE USGS |
28 |
Contaminant (or Constituent) Need to be able to indicate filtration method(s) |
The contaminant for which the sample is being analyzed. |
Constitu-ent |
ITFM UCM MSDE USGS NEMI |
29 |
Analysis Date (Can sometimes be different than sample date) |
Date that the analysis was completed in 2‑digit month, 2‑digit day, and four digit year. |
Analysis End Date |
MSDE USGS |
30 |
Analytical Results - Sign |
An alphanumeric value indicating whether the sample analysis result was: (a) (<) less than means the contaminant was not detected according to the required minimum reporting level (i.e., MRL) at the time of analysis. (b) (=) equal to means the contaminant was detected according to the to the required minimum reporting level (i.e., MRL) at the time of analysis. |
Value Quali-fier(s) |
1b UCM |
31 |
Analytical Result - Value |
The actual numeric value of the analysis. To include Density for microbes. |
Value |
1b UCM MSDE USGS |
32 |
Unit of Measure |
The unit of measurement for the analytical results reported. (e.g., µg/L, pCi/L, CFU/mL, etc.) |
|
1b UCM USGS |
33 |
Analytical Method Number |
The method number of the analytical method used. |
Analytical Method; Method Refer-ences |
1i UCM MSDE NEMI USGS |
34 |
Detection Level |
Detection level is referring to the detection limit applied to both method and equipment. Detection limits are the lowest concentration of a target analyte that a given method or piece of equipment can reliably ascertain and report as greater than zero (i.e., Instrument Detection Limit, Method Detection Limit, Estimated Detection Limit). |
Detection Level Value |
1i UCM MSDE USGS NEMI |
35 |
Detection Level Unit of Measure (Can get very involved; for instance, USGS uses their LTMDL approach) |
The measurement units used to express the concentration, count, or other value of a contaminant level. (e.g., µg/L, pCi/L, CFU/mL, etc.) |
|
1i UCM |
36 |
Detection Level Method* |
Method for determining the detectable quantity of a constituent on the basis of laboratory conditions, analytical method, and/or field conditions. |
Detection Level Method |
1i NEMI |
37 |
Reporting Level |
If the lowest numerical value that a laboratory can report reliably for a test result based on the laboratory’s experience with the method and equipment is different that the Detection Level, then it should be reported as the Reporting Level. |
|
1a 1b UCM |
38 |
Reporting Level Unit of Measure |
The measurement units used to express the concentration, count, or other value of a contaminant level. (e.g., µg/L, pCi/L, CFU/mL, etc.) |
|
1i UCM |
39 |
Analytical Precision |
Precision is the degree of agreement among a set of repeated measurements and is monitored through the use of replicate samples or measurements. Precision is expressed as: (a) Standard Deviation (SD) SD = [{ (xi ‑ avg x)2} / (n‑1)] (b) % Relative Standard Deviation (RSD), % RSD = (SD / mean concentration) x 100 , or (c) Relative Percent Difference (RPD), RPD = [(X1 ‑ X2) / {(X1 + X2)/2}] x 100 |
Precision of Value |
1i UCM NEMI |
40 |
Analytical Accuracy |
Accuracy is a measure of confidence in a measurement and can be assessed by calculating: (a) % deviation % deviation = [(average x - true value) / true value] x 100; or (b) % recovery (Rec) % Rec = [(amt. found in Spiked sample ‑ amt. found in sample) / amt. in spiked sample] x 100 Accuracy describes how close a result is to the true value measured through the use of spikes, surrogates, standards, or PE samples. |
Bias of Value |
1i UCM NEMI |
41 |
Presence/Absence |
Chemicals: Presence- a response was produced by the analysis (i.e., greater than or equal to the MDL but less than the MRL)/Absence- no response was produced by the analysis (i.e., less than the MDL). Microbes: Presence- Indicates a response was produced by the analysis /Absence- indicates no response was produced by the analysis. |
|
1b UCM |
42 |
Sample Analysis Average Period (Delete ??? — related to the analysis, not the data) |
Indicates the period over which a running average was calculated: (a) year (b) Quarter (c) month (d) week (e) daily (f) hourly |
|
1b 1i |
43 |
Sample Analysis Measurement type (Delete ??? — related to the analysis, not the data) |
(a) Direct Measure (b) Arithmetic Mean (c) Running Average (d) Percentile |
Result Type |
1b 1i |
44 |
Sample Result Valid Indicator |
Indicates whether the sample met all Quality Assurance and Quality Control Standards |
|
|
45 |
Study/Report Reference (Published Methods ??) |
Title, Reference Number, Author(s), Date, Address to receive copy of study/report |
|
Keep but modify |
46 |
Laboratory (How to handle mobile “field untis”???) |
Laboratory conducting the testing, including: Laboratory name and identification number |
Analyzing Lab |
MSDE USGS |
47 |
Laboratory Address |
The laboratory location including: Laboratory address, city, state, zip code, telephone number |
|
2 |
48 |
FIPS information or ECOREGION |
|
|
ITFM |
49 |
HUC; Habitat Info |
|
|
ITFM |
50 |
Sample batch ID; Information on sample spiking methods |
|
|
UCM USGS |
51 |
Sampling entity; filter pore size; source for published method |
|
|
NEMI |
52 |
Sample preservation |
|
|
|
-
See C. Job on additional informaiton for items 48-63 added at last minute.
Additional Discussion and Summary Notes
The workgroups covered ways to combine a set of proposed data elements with a set of listing criteria. The goal is to arrive a a core set of data elements. Eventually, any “consensus” set of data elements will need to be related to elements included in NEMI. The final set of core elements should be kept a “lean” as possible to make it easier to “sell” the idea to organizations operating major data systems or other groups setting up new data systems. To make sure there is a good rationale for including (or not including) items in a core list of data elements, it would be useful to carry out a comparison of any proposed lists with the content of several major data systems.
A comparison of proposed data elements with major data systems should help reveal what is involved in sharing data between these systems. This comparison would highlight challenges involved in reconciling any new lists with established data standards. These themes of data sharing and the proper application of data standards is related to the larger concerns of the Council. There was consensus that there is a great need to achieve better use of existing information: a set of data criteria or standards should not always be equated with starting from scratch to gather new data. Performance-base methods/standards should emphasize the effective use of existing data systems wherever possible.
In carrying out summaries of existing major data systems, a table along the following lines might be helpful:
|
|
DATA SYSTEMS |
|||
DATA ELEMENT CATEGORIES |
GENERIC NAME |
NWIS |
STORET |
Etc. |
Etc. |
(1a) What is being measured |
Sample Location |
? |
Sample Location |
|
|
Substrate Type |
? |
Substrate Type |
|
|
|
(1b) What is the constituent concentration? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|