EPA-600/4-76-050
September 1976
Environmental Monitoring Series
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING OPERATIONS OF
WATER MONITORING NETWORKS
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series.
This series describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods
and instrumentation for the identification and quantification of environmental
pollutants at the lowest conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes
studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pollutants in the environment
and/or the variance of pollutants as a function of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/4-76-050
September 1976
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING
OPERATIONS OF WATER MONITORING NETWORKS
by
Ruth W. Shnider, and Edwin S. Shapiro
URS Research Company
155 Bovet Road
San Mateo, California 94402
Contract No. 68-03-0473
Edward A. Schuck, Project Officer
Monitoring Systems Design and Analysis Staff
Monitoring Systems Research and Development Division
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND SUPPORT LABORATORY
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89114
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory-Las Vegas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
PREFACE
The procedures detailed herein are a "first cut" at the development of
a mathematical basis for the evaluation of monitoring network operations.
Since the relative importance of the components of network operations is a
function of monitoring network objectives, no single evaluation technique is
universally applicable. For this reason and because of the complex nature
of this subject, the evaluation methods developed herein are applicable only
to monitoring networks whose main objective is to document compliance with
or progress toward attainment of promulgated ambient water-quality standards
and/or regulations.
A necessary restriction placed on development of this evaluation proce-
dure was that it be consistent with existing regulations promulgated by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning site selection, network
design, sampling methodology and quality assurance procedures. Substantial
changes in these regulations will require modification of the evaluation
procedure.
Identification of the seven major operational components of a water-
quality monitoring network with the stated main objective was accomplished by
an on-site study of five networks judged by the EPA Regional Offices to be
among the best operating networks. The major characteristics identified are:
1. Network Design, 2. Personnel, 3. Facilities and Equipment, 4. Sampling,
5. Quality Assurance, 6. Data Distribution and Dissemination, and 7. Agency
Interactions. While the on-site studies served to identify the operational
components, they did not provide sufficient data for a mathematical assignment
of the relative weights for these components. To provide the latter, the
opinions of governmental experts in the monitoring field were solicited and
the results statistically analyzed. Values of the weighting factors so derived
have been carried to the third decimal place because these factors are nor-
malized values of over 40 responses. It will be noted, therefore, that users
of these evaluation techniques will be comparing the operational characteris-
tics of their network against mathematically derived functions of the opin-
ions of over 40 experts. While this approach admittedly has drawbacks, it is,
as stated, a "first cut" approach. A separate document describing the mathe-
matical treatment of the expert opinion data and derivation of the relative
weights of operational components will be furnished by the Project Officer
upon request.
Finally, it will be noted that application of this procedure is complex
and can be carried out only by personnel directly involved in operation of
the monitoring network. Depending on the magnitude of the network, this
application may require inputs from several individuals with a total manpower
investment of up to 5 man-days. This latter, however, is a small price if it
leads to a more technically optimum and cost-effective monitoring operation.
iii
-------
The procedures in this manual have not been field tested; however, such
an evaluation is planned for the immediate future. In the interim we encour-
age users of this manual to submit their observations and suggestions for
improvement.
***************************************
NOTICE TO USERS OF THE MANUAL
At the time this manual was prepared, the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Title 40, Part 130, required each State to prepare a "Basin Plan," as
defined in the Glossary, in the quotation from 40 CFR 130, June 3, 1974.
This "Basin Plan" was used as a basic unit in evaluation procedures used in
the manual. During the time required for review and final preparation of
the manual for publication, 40 CFR 130 was revised and terminology was
changed. The term "Basin Plan" was deleted, and the replacing term "water
quality management plan" is now used; the term "Basin" was deleted, and the
terms "State planning area," "approved planning areas" and "designated area-
wide planning area" are now defined and used in the current CFR revision
dated November 28, 1975. The terminology used in the manual is familiar to
potential users, and State Basin Plans are in existence; therefore, the older
terminology has not been changed to that in the latest CFR revision. Follow-
ing alphabetical definitions of the older terminology in the glossary,
definitions of these new terms are quoted from the November 1975 revision
of the CFR, so that correlation can be made between old and new terminology.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
PREFACE iii
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENT x
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION II. COMPILATION OF THE DATA BASE 6
II.A Information on Primary Network Design and
Parameters Monitored 6
II.B Information on Personnel 11
II.C Information on Facilities, Equipment, and Standards ... 12
II.D Information on Data Dissemination and Utilization .... 17
II.E Information on Budgetary Allocations 17
SECTION III. AREA OF NETWORK PLAN AND DESIGN 19
III.A Rating of Number of Fixed Stations 19
III.A.I Stations by Category 19
III.A.2 Rating of Stations Monitoring Point
Source Discharges 23
III.A.3 Rating for the Element 24
III.B Rating of Effectiveness of Station Location 24
I II.C Evaluation of Area of Plan and Design 26
SECTION IV. EVALUATION OF PERSONNEL 27
IV.A Budgetary Allocations 27
IV.B Technical Services Personnel Qualifications 29
IV.B.I Experience Rating and Procedural Steps 29
IV.B.2 Special On-Job Formal Training Rating
and Procedural Steps 31
IV.B.3 Rating of Personnel Qualifications 34
IV.C Evaluation of Area of Personnel 34
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Pat
SECTION V. EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF FACILITIES AND
EQUIPMENT 35
V.A Office Facilities 35
V.B Laboratory Facilities 36
V.C Laboratory Instruments 36
V.D Laboratory Instrument Qualifications 37
V.E Field Facilities 37
V.F Field Instruments 37
V.G Area Evaluation 37
SECTION VI. EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF SAMPLING 40
VI.A Rating of Parameters Monitored 40
VLB Rating for Frequency of Monitoring 40
VI.C Evaluation of Area of Sampling 46
SECTION VII. EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF QUALITY ASSURANCE 48
VILA Field Instrument Calibration 48
VII.B Field Instrument Maintenance 48
VII.C Field Measurement Controls 48
VILD Laboratory Instrument Calibration 48
VILE Laboratory Measurement Controls 48
VII.F Factors Affecting Laboratory Supplies 49
VII.G Area Evaluation 49
SECTION VIII. EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF DATA DISTRIBUTION
AND DISSEMINATION 53
SECTION IX. EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF AGENCY INTERACTION 54
SECTION X. OVERALL EVALUATION OF NETWORK OPERATIONS 56
SECTION XL EVALUATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATION TO TECHNICAL
SERVICES 57
XL A Basic Data 57
XLB Rating for Budget Allocation to Surface Water Quality
Monitoring, Laboratory and Data Analysis Personnel .... 58
XI.C Rating for Budgetary Allocation to Compliance Personnel . . 58
XI.D Evaluation of Technical Services Budget Allocation .... 62
SECTION XII. REFERENCES 63
SECTION XIII. GLOSSARY OF TERMS 65
vx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Rating for station location 26
2 Determination of administrative personnel budget
allocation 28
3 Budgetary-allocation-to-administrative-personnel rating 30
4 Experience rating curve 32
5 Rating for on-job training program 33
6 Rating for monitoring frequency of trace metals/toxic
materials and biota 47
7 Rating for monitoring frequency of plankton 47
8 Rating for monitoring frequency of other water quality
and hydrological parameters 47
9 Determination of technical services personnel budget
allocation 59
10 Surface water monitoring, laboratory, and data analysis 60
11 Compliance personnel budget allocation rating 61
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of indicator parameters for six area types
in regions of average rainfall and for an arid region .... 4
2 Primary network information 7
3 Personnel information 11
4 Information on facilities, equipment and standards 12
5 Data dissemination and utilization 17
6 Information on budgetary allocations 18
7 Rating of existing stations by category 20
8 Rating of stations monitoring point source discharges .... 24
9 Score for effectiveness of station locations 25
10 Ratings for facilities 38
11 Evaluation of parameters monitored 41
12 Weighting factors for indicator parameters by category .... 42
13 Frequency of monitoring 45
14 Rating for quality assurance 50
15 Evaluation of data distribution and utilization 53
16 Overall evaluation of network operations 56
17 Basic budget data 57
Vlll
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
A.A. Spectrophotometer
Algal nut.
Alkal/acid.
Avg.
Bact. param.
Engr.
EPA
freq.
I.R.
mfr.
mtls.
PL
Ref.
Refrig.
Rel. R
Spec. Cond.
Spectrophoto.
SS
Stat. control
Std.
Temp.
Turbid.
USGS
U.V.
vol. anal.
atomic absorption spectrophotometer
algal nutrients
alkalinity/acidity
average
Bacteriological parameters
Engineering
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
frequency
Infra-red
manufacturer
metals
Public Law
Reference
Refrigerator
Relative Rating
Specific Conductance
Sp ectrophot omet er
Suspended Solids
Statistical control
standard
temperature
turbidity
U.S. Geological Survey
ultra-violet
volumetric analysis
SYMBOLS
COD
DO
pH
STORET
TKN
TOG
chemical oxygen demand
dissolved oxygen
the hydrogen-ion activity in gram
equivalents per liter, used to
express both acidity and alkalinity
symbol for the water quality data
storage and retrieval system
developed by and for the EPA
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total organic carbon
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Many individuals at the five water networks visited and the respondents
to the Letter Survey have been helpful in developing the material used in
these recommended procedures. For all assistance received from them and from
the members of the URS in-house panel of experts, the project management ex-
tends its sincere gratitude.
Mr. Edward Schuck, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, served as Proj-
ect Officer, assisted by Mr. Leslie Dunn and Mr. Les McMillion. Mrs. Ruth
Shnider served as Project Manager, Dr.- Wesley Bradford visited and compiled
the information on the five networks studied, and Dr. Edwin Shapiro developed
the theory and prepared the material for Sections III and XI.
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
This manual presents procedures for performing an evaluation of the
major factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of an existing
surface-water quality monitoring and standards compliance network. Two
basic simplifications are used: (1) the assumption that the primary pur-
pose of water quality monitoring is to document progress toward attaining,
or the maintenance of, both ambient and discharge water quality objectives;
(2) only the primary network is considered in the evaluation scheme. This
fixed network must meet a wide range of long-term objectives and is oper-
ated by that organization with the responsibility for monitoring water
quality and compliance in the area. Many organizations (federal, state,
private) may operate monitoring stations within any given network area.
Stations from which data effectively contribute to the knowledge of the
responsible organization may be considered a part of the primary network
system, even though that organization does not bear their cost. Stations
that are ineffective in aiding the responsible organization to meet water
quality objectives are not considered part of the network.
The evaluational techniques presented in this manual are achieved by
subdividing network operations into a set of Areas such as Plan and Design,
Personnel Qualifications, Facilities and Equipment, and Quality Assurance.
Each Area is evaluated individually, based on rating major Elements that
comprise the functions of the Area and influence the effectiveness of
output. Each Area evaluation cannot -- and does not attempt to deal
with all the complexities involved, since such an effort would be ex-
tremely lengthy and time-consuming. However, evaluational results are
meaningful because the techniques used should make apparent any signifi-
cant deficiency in an Area or an Area Element, and indicate the need
for an in-depth detailed examination. For each Area, a method is pro-
vided for integrating the Element ratings into an Area Evaluation. Sim-
ilarly, a method is provided for the integration of Area evaluations,
resulting in an overall network evaluation.
The final section of the manual presents an analysis of the cost-
effectiveness of network operations, based on information available at
this time. Adjustments in the analytical results can readily be made if
more information is made available.
The procedures presented for evaluation of network design are based
on the assumption that the State Basin Plan is designed to meet defined
water quality objectives, and that it locates and lists all significant
discharges, characterized by parameters; locates all monitoring stations,
both existing and planned, along with parameters monitored at each;
-------
lists and maps each segment; and classifies each. These requirements are
all stated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500), 1972,
and in the Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR), Title 40, Parts 130 and 131,
1974. Recommended evaluation techniques also consider that monitoring re-
quirements are a function of parameters that affect water quality, and the
major parameters vary with regional characteristics, activities, and/or
land use. In an initial effort to develop a systematic approach to such
requirements, six basic land-use types of areas are defined, with a set
of parameters proposed as indicators of water quality for each area. Any
one or any combination of these types of areas may be encompassed by the
network. It is suggested that one measure of network efficiency is the
degree to which these parameters are monitored in the receiving waters
for each area-type. Proposed basic areas and indicator parameters for the
receiving waters of each area are:
A. Cities with heavy industry, commerce, and high population
density, that create the major waste burden for the re-
ceiving waters.
Major parameters: DO, pH, Turbidity/Suspended Solids,
Biota/Species Diversity, Bacteriological Parameters,
Trace Metals.
B. Urban/Suburban areas, where the major discharge to the
receiving waters is domestic sewage and runoff from
residential areas.
Major parameters: DO, Algal Nutrients, Turbidity, and
where recreational areas are included, Bacteriological
Parameters.
C. Watersheds/Wilderness areas, where surface water quality
is essentially unaltered, i.e., the impact of human acti-
vity and/or land development has not significantly changed
the natural condition of surface waters.
Major parameters: DO, Algal Nutrients, Temperature,
Trace Metals if the areas include metallic deposits, as
most such areas do.
D. Farming areas, where the water quality is dominated by
agricultural drainage.
Major parameters: DO, Algal Nutrients, Bacteriological
Parameters, Turbidity/Suspended Solids.
E. Eutrophic or Potentially Eutrophic areas, where water
quality is rapidly degrading.
Major parameters: Algal Nutrients (including TOC), DO,
Turbidity, Temperature.
-------
F. Mining areas and areas of geothermal activity, where the
natural conditions of the surface waters are affected by
leachate or runoff from mines.
Major parameters: Trace Metals, Toxic Materials, pH,
Alkalinity/Acidity, Turbidity/Suspended Solids, Specific
Conductance.
The indicator parameters for each area may require modification as a
result of the regional characteristics with respect to rainfall, i.e.,
whether the region is one of average or normal rainfall, or whether it is
arid. Major indicator parameters for an arid region should be included
with those of the specific area if it lies in an arid region, defined as
one where water consumption within the area consistently exceeds net annual
precipitation and necessitates reuse of water. Parameters particularly
affecting water quality are: pH, Alkalinity, Algal Nutrients, Specific
Conductance, Bacteriological Parameters. Table 1 presents a tabulated
summary of the six Areas and Indicator Parameters.
The operations of the existing network are evaluated, in this proposed
methodology, with respect to several factors: (1) the State Basin Plan;
(2) recommendations in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
document Model State Water Monitoring Program, June 1973; (3) area type
and representative or critical locations for monitoring indicator para-
meters; and (4) requirements as indicated in a nationwide survey of qual-
ified personnel involved in water quality monitoring.
Reference standards used in evaluating facilities, equipment, and
quality assurance are taken from the U.S. EPA, Handbook for Analytical Quality
Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories, 1972; U.S. EPA, Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, 1974; U.S. EPA, Biological Field
and Laboratory Methods, 1973; U.S. EPA, Model State Water Monitoring Program,
June 1975; and pertinent published Federal regulations. Weighting factors
used in some evaluations are derived from analysis of the weightings given
the various Elements and their components in the nationwide survey noted
earlier.
To carry out the recommended procedures for evaluation, a map of the
network showing existing station locations and the State Basin Plan for the
area in which the network is located will be needed. It would also be
valuable to have at hand the first four reports noted in the preceding para-
graph, fully documented in the list of References.
The manual consists of the next ten Sections numbered with Roman numerals,
Section II is the Compilation of the Data Base, to be recorded in Tables
2 through 6. Table 2 concerns general network information on participating
agencies, station locations, and parameters monitored at each; Table 3 con-
cerns personnel qualifications; Table 4 deals with facilities, equipment
and standards; Table 5 concerns data dissemination and utilization; and
Table 6 requires information on budgetary allocations. Some information
should be available from files of the network and some from the Basin Plan;
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF INDICATOR PARAMETERS FOR SIX AREA TYPES IN
REGIONS OF AVERAGE RAINFALL AND FOR AN ARID REGION
Municipal/Industrial
DO
Bacteriological Parameters
Turbidity/Suspended Solids
pH
Biota/Species Diversity
Trace Metals
Urban/Suburban
DO
Algal Nutrients
Bacteriological Parameters
Turbidity
Watershed/Wilderness
DO
Algal Nutrients
Temperature
Trace Metals
Farming
DO
Algal Nutrients
Bacteriological Parameters
Turbidity/Suspended Solids
Eutrophic or Potentially
DO
Algal Nutrients
Turbidity
Temperature
Mining/Geothermal
PH
Turbidity/Suspended Solids
Specific Conductance
Alkalinity/Acidity
Trace Metals
Toxic Materials
Arid Region
Algal Nutrients
Bacteriological Parameters
pH
Specific Conductance
Alkalinity
-------
personal inspection will be required for some data. When Section II is com-
pleted, the evaluation procedures of each of the following Sections can be
completed in a short time. The entire task, including Section II, should
take no more than 5 days.
A Glossary is located at the end of the manual to ensure uniformity of
meaning of the terminology used.
-------
SECTION II
COMPILATION OF THE DATA BASE
In this Section, the information needed to carry out the evaluational pro-
cedures for each Area considered will be tabulated in Tables 2 through 6.
11.A INFORMATION ON PRIMARY NETWORK DESIGN AND PARAMETERS MONITORED
Source Information: Network Map and Basin Plan
Tabulation of Data: Table 2
In Table 2, information is to be recorded on the number of stations in
each of a number of categories. "Categories" are activity-monitoring loca-
tions, for which parameters requiring monitoring can be correlated with Area
Indicator parameters, defined in the Introduction. Additional information
to be recorded concerns: (1) whether stations are located in regions that are
arid, or of average rainfall; (2) the parameters monitored; and (3) the fre-
quency of sampling.
The determination and recording of such information for all stations
of a network would provide information for a complete evaluation of the net-
work design and of the network monitoring effectiveness, but the task could
be prohibitively time-consuming. To avoid such a situation, inspect the
station categories listed in Table 2, and select, for broadest application,
one segment or subbasin in the network that includes the maximum number of
such categories. Record information in Table 2 for this one segment, and use
it as representative of the network. Note that stations located in bays or
estuaries do not form a category, but should be included in a downstream group
of the category that evaluates effects on the receiving waters of activities
applicable to the particular situation.
A critically located station will usually provide extremely valuable in-
formation because it will monitor effects on water quality of more than one
activity, and thus serve in a cost-effective way. Therefore, in the tabula-
tion of Table 2 list each station in every category for which it is used.
For instance, the upstream receiving water station of a pair bracketing a
municipal and industrial center may at the same time monitor the receiving
waters downstream of irrigated farmland. Such a station should therefore be
counted in categories 5.a and 13.b. However, the Region type of the activity
being monitored may differ, and the parameters monitored may also differ in
the two categories, and should be so indicated.
As noted above, the network map and Basin Plan should provide the infor-
mation needed to complete Table 2, the format of which has been designed to
allow rapid retrieval of information for use in the evaluations of several
-------
Table 2. PRIMARY NETWORK INFORMATIOiN
* CATIONS, WCATIOW. MMMFITIIS, TO Moin*»i« FWQUESCY
1, Jusber of significant point source discharges in selected representative sepaent or subbasin
:. Total number of stations in segment
:,, Sysber of effectively contributing fixed stations in the selected segment pei
STATION CATEGORY NUMBER OF STATIONS
. . (a) upstream
: ',c. sunons sn receiving waters
"" ' (bj downstream
(a) upstream
, ',i . sratioRs monitoring
VL inJiiSinal centers. « .
(bj downstream
(a) upstream
\c. ?'jiions ncmitoring * ' ^
,j[ in/suburban areas- ^ dwnsireaa
' V-. -.;,(: iors it Jn^irs; water
s.,:f!v intakes.
.,'. -,',a'tor,s at reservoirs:
, \.\ ^tailors in recreational
vi'fr ""Vies
(a) upstrear
:s:cj stJ' 10E.S.
ft) dowr.strean
., V, stations monitoring eutrophK
;r potential eutrophic »ater bodies.
f
i,. ,'.fi, stations at norths of significant
tributaries to rains t em rivers or bays-
;:. .>. station monitoring <»! upstrea.
irrigated fana land.
fbj downstream
Region
j type
Arid | Avg.
i
i
I
f
, , (a) upstream 1
i-i. -a. stations monitoring j
r,ir,ing or gMtkrnai areas: (b) downs,r(M
:' \e. uprtreafn boundary stations
It. .So, downstream boundary stations
i". Representative location in rivers,
coastal areas, i impoundment!
IS. Total Activities Monitored
i
.4... ,
_j
~
._
i
" ' T~ '
Region
type
Aric
i
j
| Avg
4
~i
H -
\
-j :
i
Agency Niaber of t
xisting plus planned per Agen
=y
Parameters and Sampling Frequency aonitored at exiiting stations i
*
.It
i
| !
j *-
| f~
~f
i
i
,._>.-...
|
f~
|
j
-
_i^
i
Algal i
nutri- c
ents
V S F V
i ,
i ;
!
44
:
!
4-4--
|L
i
i
i
pec.
end,/ ^
SS F
S F VJS
j |
I
i !
r ~ f
_j_j
i ' !
I
I
j
i i
i j ;
I 5 -
( {
t i '
> , L
T H r
I
I |
i
Mill
acid. T
K S F S
[ I
j
_L_
I
i
; I
» -t +
j
'
I
|
j
i i
i
-JO---
u
j
j
i i
nil
Trace
etals
e«p. toxic (
mis.
S F 1 S f 1
1
"~~t I
j !
[ -
| , ,
1 ;
_,
1
i ' [
-L~~ L , 1
i i i i
! i :
I
i
It
j
i
i
'00 TOC
S F \ S
...~L -1 4 ~
\ :
; ! 1
i
i > :
i i i
i i
i | i
j ]
|
i i
i i
! !
Hr
1
I
Bacter
parani.
v S 1
-
1
p
+
j
i i
1
j
. Turbid
SS
\j<; r
j 4
~ t"
f-4-
_
i i
i
i j
!
_j +,.
\
-f -"t-
j
!
s
L
Biota
/ specie
diver
sity*
v|c
1 |
\ \
I ;
1
-*. (....
___
j
i
Strean
flow
^ , 0
]
1
.-4 .
i
i t
i ^
JL-i
"'
...... ;._^.r. _
-t \
; I
i
itage c
water
iurfacc
elev.
1
!
- r-
- -+-
4 ,
I ,
I
i
j
_p_.
j
i I
i
!
Tidal ;
stage i
1
V < F
I...
. ,
-*- -r '
- ' 1 -i
;
I-H
-f ^
: |
f- 1~ .
J...-4-
1 u
1
* E * fxtsting stations f AS you record number per Region type, * No. stations Mmi taring the paraseter $ SatpHng; code A for automatic
P « Planned stations indicate also the maber of diichawe by Region type, i.e., 3/n, or 5/a, code M for manual
points (0) that are nonitored, i.e.,
4/60 or J/3D,
F frequency; code the frequency ** K'cord plankton separately froi other
representative of nost stations in biological paraieters:
category: ,
P daily bM blvntnly SY senlmnually K
»eekly Q quarterly (seasonally! C continuously
-------
network operational Areas. Each item is numbered. These numbers will be used
as "Source Reference" identifiers in the evaluation tables. For uniformity
of format, there is a column for S, Kind of Sampling, below each parameter,
although only Manual Sampling applies for some parameters.
To proceed with the compilation of the data base, determine and indicate
on the network map those areas of the selected segment that are of average
rainfall, and those that are arid (if there are differences to be noted in
Table 2). Then record in Table 2, as indicated in the following Procedural
Steps, data that pertain to the selected segment.
Step 1
From the Basin Plan, determine the number of "significant" (as defined
in the Glossary) point-source discharges in the segment, and record the number
in Table 2, item 1.
Step 2
Record in item 2 the total number of fixed stations in the segment,
regardless of whether the stations contribute to primary network information.
(In the following Steps, include only stations that
contribute effectively to the primary network information, and
are located in the receiving waters.)
Step 3
Record in item 3 the number of Existing fixed stations, per Agency,
e.g., 8/local, 3/State, 2/USGS, 2/EPA, etc. Similarly record the total Planned
(existing plus those to be added, per Agency), according to the Basin Plan.
Step 4
Use the network map and the Basin Plan to determine the information
needed in item 4. Record the number, per Region type, of stations monitoring
effects of point-source discharges, both Existing (in column labeled E) and
Planned (column labeled P) stations upstream of the discharges in
item 4.a, and downstream, item 4.b. For each number of stations, also record
the number of discharge points (D) monitored, e.g., 4/6D, 3/3D, etc.
Step 5
For each group of stations (upstream and downstream) listed in Step 4,
record the following: (1) number of stations monitoring each parameter listed
--if both Region types are checked within one group, indicate the number of
stations by Region type for each parameter, using "n" to indicate average
rainfall and "a" to indicate arid, e.g., 3/n, 2/a; (2) the kind of sampling
(automatic or manual); (3) code the frequency as indicated on the Table. If,
within a group, the frequency varies, record that most typical.
-------
Step 6
Follow the procedures of Steps 4 and 5 for each of the listed categories
(items 5 through 17) that are applicable to the segment. Regarding item 17,
the definition of Representative Point" is provided in the Glossary.
Step 7
When all the stations are listed, by category and Region type, through
item 17, sum the totals for each Region type. For categories 4.a and 4.b,
count the number of discharge points monitored, rather than the number of
stations. Record the totals for each Region type in item 18. These totals
provide an accounting of the number of activities monitored in the segment,
by Region type.
10
-------
II.B INFORMATION ON PERSONNEL
Source of information: Personnel Files
Tabulation of Data: Table 3
In Table 3, the first column lists general categories of network technical
positions. The specific positions may vary with networks. Fill in the appli-
cable positions, and the remaining information needed in the table.
TABLE 3. PERSONNEL INFORMATION
1. Position
and
section
2. Years in
present
position
3. Starting
position
(if other
than present)
4. Salary of
starting
position
today
S. Salary
today
6. Years
with
network
7. On- job
training*
availability
Administration
Water monitoring
Laboratory
Data analysis
Compliance-engr.
*Courses made available by the network.
11
-------
II.C INFORMATION ON FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND STANDARDS
Source of Information: Inspection of facilities, laboratory
procedures, records, and discussions
with monitoring and laboratory super-
visory personnel.
Tabulation of Data: Table 4
There are seven sections in Table 4, each of which consists of a series
of questions with space provided for the answers. Non-metric units of square
feet are used in this text as referenced in the source materials used. The
conversion factor is sq. ft. x 0.0929 = m2. All the information requested
will be used in the evaluations. Much of the information regards laboratory
equipment and procedures. If the network does not operate its own laboratory,
determine the information regarding the laboratory that performs analyses
for the network.
TABLE 4. INFORMATION ON FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND STANDARDS
1. Office Facilities
a. What is the percentage of office personnel with a minimum of
100 sq. ft. per person ? %
b. Are appropriate reference sources available, either in a
library or on Division bookcases?
2. Laboratory Facilities and Equipment
a. Space
(1) What is the percentage of laboratory personnel with a
minimum of 150 sq. ft. per person? %
(2) Is there sufficient bench-top space to provide for per-
manent setup of equipment, glassware, reagents, etc.?
(3) Is hood space adequate?
(4) Are drawers available for keeping items in an orderly
fashion?
(5) Is there a separate locked area for enforcement samples?
b. Cleanliness
(1) Is a check list maintained to assure area cleanliness?
(2) Is a check list maintained to assure hood cleanliness?
(3) Are safety showers available?
(4) Are exits free of debris, etc.?
12
-------
TABLE 4. (continued")
c. Environmental control
(1) Is there separate refrigerator/freezer space for sample
storage?
(2) Is a separate area provided for dark, dry storage?
(3) Are stock reference materials stored in a separate cold area?
(4) Are hoods on independent exhaust systems?
(5) Are all hoods in working order?
Equipment
(1) If at least two units of permanent glassware set ups (e.g., for
titrations, COD, TKN, etc.) are available, record a value of
1; if only one setup is available, record 0.5.
(2) What percentage of calibrated volumetric glassware is of
borosilicate glass, Class A designation? %
What is approximate total number of volumetric glass con-
tainers?
(3) What percentage of plastic vessels or containers is of Teflon,
polyprolylene, or high density polyethylene? %
What is the approximate total number of plastic containers?
(4) What is average age of equipment?
1 to 3 years ,
3 to 6 years ,
6 to 10 years
(5) Express as a decimal number the number of the six standard
porosities of fritted ware that are available.
(6) Is fritted ware properly stored and classified?
(7) If each of the following is available, record a 1, if not,
a zero:
(a) incubator ;
(b) still ;
(c) ovens ;
(d) water baths ;
(e) recorders ;
(f) NBS-certified thermometer ;
(g) compressed air ;
(h) constant voltage supply ;
(i) selective ion electrodes .
e. Supplies (chemicals, reagents, gases)
(1) Are supplies appropriately stored?
(2) Are supplies appropriately handled?
(3) Are standard reference materials used?
(4) Is an inventory maintained?
(5) Are established purchasing guidelines used?
(6) Are chemicals dated on receipt of shipment?
13
-------
TABLE 4. (continued")
Laboratory Instruments and Maintenance
a. If each of the following instruments is available, record a 1,
if not, a 0.
(1) Both gross and fine analytical balances
(2) Potentiometer (pH meter)
(3) Conductivity meter
(4) Turbidimeter
(5) Visual spectrophotometer
(6) Ultraviolet spectrophotometer
(7) Infrared spectrophotometer
(8) Atomic absorption spectrophotometer
(9) Total carbon analyzer
(10) Gas chromatograph
b. Instrument specifications
(1) Are analytical balances of appropriate sensitivities and proper
mountings for tests performed (as defined in the EPA Handbook
for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater
Laboratories)?
(2) Are pH meters available with both normal and expanded scales?
(3) Is the Turbidimeter used the Hach Model 2100A or equivalent?
(4) Are the sensitivity and precision of the laboratory instruments
sufficient to measure all necessary parameters as specified in
the EPA manual, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes?
Instrumental and analytical method calibrations
(1) Are there documented calibration schedules for all instruments?
(2) Are these schedules according to Manufacturer's recommendations?
(3) Has documentation been used to modify the schedule?
(4) Are balances serviced at least once per year?
(5) Are Class S weights available for periodic checks on balances?
(6) Are these checks documented?
(7) Are color standards or their equivalent used to verify wave-
length settings of spectrophotometers?
(8) Are these results documented?
(9) Are volumetric analyses checked against primary standards?
14
-------
TABLE 4. (continued)
4. Field Facilities, Instruments, and Maintenance
a. Facilities:
(1) What is the percentage of stations with permanent housing? 3
(2) Is there at least one fully equipped mobile laboratory per
Basin?
(3) Is there at least one portable equipment vehicle per Basin?
(4) Are portable refrigerated containers always available?
b. Field instruments
If the following portable field instruments are always available,
record a 1, if not, a 0.
(1) pH meters
(2) Conductivity meters
(3) DO meters
(4) Portable wet analytical gear
c. Fixed monitors
(1) At what percent of the stations are there fixed monitors? \
d. Calibration of field instruments
(1) Are calibrations documented at beginning and end of each day's
use for all meters used for field measurements?
(2) Are fixed continuous sensor calibrations checked and documented
at least weekly?
(3) Are calibration frequencies checked against manufacturer's
recommendations?
(4) Is documentation used to modify calibration schedule?
e. Maintenance of field instruments
(1) Is regular maintenance on a documented schedule?
(2) Is documented maintenance used to modify the schedule?
(3) Is the schedule compared with manufacturer's recommendations?
f. Controls on field measurements
(1) Is instrument down time documented and evaluated?
(2) Is transmitted data validated?
(3) Are secondary standards validated?
(4) Is there a preventative maintenance schedule?
(5) Are statistical control chart techniques used?
15
-------
TABLE 4. (continued)
5. Analytical Measurement Controls
a. Sample containers, preservation techniques, and holding times
Is glass used for all organic analyses?
(2) Are preservation techniques those cited in Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastewater (Ref. 2)?
(3) If techniques other than those of Ref. 2 are used, are data
on a variety of sample types provided to document use of the
techniques?
(4) Are holding times those cited in Ref. 2?
(5) If other than Ref. 2 holding times are used, are data cited
on a variety of sample types to document the use?
(6) Are volumes of samples sufficient for all needed/desired
analyses?
b. Analytical methods used
(1) Do analyses use procedures in recognized manuals such as EPA,
GS, SM, ASTM, and/or those published in scientific journals?
(2) Is each method written up and on file for review?
(3) Are test procedures for compliance monitoring those defined
in 40 CFR 136?
(4) Are statistical control chart techniques used?
c. Cleaning methods
(1) Standard cleaning methods (for glassware and equipment) are
followed, adapted to analyses to be performed, % of the
time;
(2) Special cleaning requirements (for spectrophotometers, trace
metals, organic analyses) are followed % of the time;
(3) Filters are cleaned by standard methods" % of the time.
d. Validation techniques
(1) How many replicate analyses are performed to every set or to
approximately every 20 samples?
(2) Is use made of (a) blind samples ; (b) split samples
(c) spiking samples in field at times of collection ?
(3) How many spiked samples are run to approximately every
20 samples?
(4) Is there an on-going interlaboratory comparison program?
6. Documentation
a. Is a documented check list maintained on:
(1) Compressed air purity?
(2) Distilled water purity?
16
-------
TABLE 4. (continued)
(3) Deionized water purity?
(4) Vacuum system freedom of impurities?
(5) Reagent and solvent preparation and standards?
b. Are corrections of bench records crossed out, not erased?
c. What percent of data records are dated and signed?
d. Is a written chain-of-custody procedure available and in use? _
e. What percent of analyses are recorded in permanent form? ~~
f. What is the form: (a) unbound sheets ;
(b) bound notebooks
g. Are samples identified by number?
h. Are all samples logged in?
7. Specified Quality Assurance Program
a. Is there a written quality assurance program?
b. Has a Quality Assurance Officer, or equivalent, been appointed,
and is required training being provided?
c. What finite percentage of monitoring resources is formally
committed to quality assurance and related activities?
II.D INFORMATION ON DATA DISSEMINATION AND UTILIZATION
Determine from office files and discussion with personnel, answers to
the questions of Table 5, and record the results in the Table.
TABLE 5. DATA DISSEMINATION AND UTILIZATION
1. What is average data turnaround time, i.e., time from data analysis
until it is available to a user?
2. Are data supplied to STORET?
3. Are water quality data released to the public at least annually?
4. Are the data used to develop and/or support models?
5. Do data support enforcement actions if needed?
6. Does data flow routinely to the next higher Agency?
(i.e., if local to State, if State to U.S. EPA)
II.E INFORMATION ON BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS
Office files should contain needed information on budget allocations to
be recorded in Table 6.
17
-------
TABLE 6. INFORMATION ON BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS
Water monitoring agency
oo
Number basins in network
Indicate whether major emphasis is: Water quality monitoring
Compliance
A. Budget information
1. Total budget $
2. Budget for activity
3. Percent of total
Personnel
4. Salaries and Benefits
5. Percent of activity
budget (2)
6. Percent of total
budget (1)
Technical Services
Administration and Water quality Lab and data
public information monitoring analysis
7. Total personnel budget
8. Percent of total budget
Compliance
$
-------
SECTION III
AREA OF NETWORK PLAN AND DESIGN
In this Area, ratings are carried out only for two Elements -- the number
of stations in the selected segment and station location. The latter was
definitely weighted the most important factor among the experts queried
in the Letter Survey. Site characteristics were considered next in impor-
tance, for obvious reasons. Poor quality of certain Site Characteristics,
such as Site Accessibility, ease of access to the water, and design of
fixed instrumentation could affect quality control (of prime importance
since that affects data validity) and sampling frequency. However, not
only can quality definition of these three items be subject to personal
bias, but also the compilation of information needed to determine the
quality (including actually visiting the sites) could be too lengthy a
task to fit the constraints of gathering data and performing the planned
network evaluation within five days. Therefore, only the two Elements are
considered in this Area. A Rating is derived for the number of Stations,
first.
111.A RATING OF NUMBER OF FIXED STATIONS
This Element is divided into two sub-Elements, scored separately. The
scores are then combined to derive the Element rating.
III.A.I Stations by Category
For this evaluation, the number of stations monitoring each category is
given a score, using the State Basin Plan as the reference standard.
The methods for the first two scores are detailed to clarify the proce-
dure. The remaining ones are listed in order. Procedures are stated in
"Steps," with corresponding "Steps" indicated in Table 7, along with the
Source Reference (items in Table 2). All information needed is recorded in
Table 2. Fill in only those Procedural Steps for which categories are appli-
cable in the selected segment.
Step 1
a. Record on the first line of Table 7, in the column labeled "No. E,"
the number of existing stations for all Region types, upstream of discharges
(sum the numbers for item 4.a, column E).
b. Record on the same line in the column labeled "No. P," the total
number of Planned stations monitoring upstream (sum the item 4.a numbers in
column P).
19
-------
TABLE 7. RATING OF EXISTING STATIONS BY CATEGORY
E = number of Existing Stations, per category, items 4 through 17, Table 2.
P = total number of Planned Stations per category, items 4 through 17,
Table 2.
Score = No. E divided by No. P.
Source ref. No. E No. P Score
Table 2
Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
Step 5.
Step 6.
Step 7.
Step 8.
Step 9
Step 10.
Step 11.
Step 12.
Step 13.
Step 14.
Step 15.
Step 16.
Step 17.
Step 18.
Step 19.
Step 20.
Step 21.
Step 22.
Item
4. a
4-b
5. a
S.b
6. a
6.b
7.
8.
9.
10. a
10. b
11.
12
13. a
13. b
14. a
14. b
15
16
17
Sum =
Sub-Element rating r, =
NOTE: The closer the value of r, is to 1, the closer the number of
stations is to the required number.
20
-------
c. In the column labeled "Score," record as a decimal number the value
of No. E divided by No. P. This number provides a score, when expressed as
a percent, of the number of existing stations monitoring upstream of point
source discharges with respect to the Basin Plan number of stations.
Step 2
a. Record on the second line of Table 7, in the column labeled No. E,
the number of existing stations for all Region types (sum the numbers in
item 4.b, column E, Table 2) monitoring downstream of point source discharges.
b. Record on the same line, in the column labeled No. P, the total
number of Planned stations monitoring downstream of point source discharges
(sum the numbers in item 4.b, column P, Table 2).
c. In the column labeled score, record as a decimal number the value
of No. E divided by No. P. This number, expressed as a percent, expresses
the degree to which the existing number of stations monitoring downstream of
point source discharges meets requirements of the Basin Plan.
Steps 3 through 20 are a repetitive operation of Steps 1 and 2 for the fol-
lowing inputs:
Step 3
The number of stations monitoring the waters upstream of municipal and
industrial centers;
Step 4
The number of stations monitoring downstream of municipal and industrial
centers;
Step 5
The number of stations monitoring upstream of urban/suburban areas;
Step 6
The number of stations monitoring downstream of urban/suburban areas;
Step 7
The number of stations monitoring water-supply intakes;
Step 8
The number of stations monitoring reservoirs;
Step 9
The number of stations monitoring recreational water bodies;
21
-------
Step 10
The number of stations monitoring upstream of watershed/wilderness areas;
Step 11
The number of stations monitoring downstream of watershed/wilderness
areas;
Step 12
The number of stations monitoring eutrophic or potentially eutrophic
water bodies;
Step 13
The number of stations at mouths of significant tributaries to mainstem
rivers or bays;
Step 14
The number of stations monitoring upstream of irrigated farmland;
Step 15
The number of stations monitoring downstream of irrigated farmland;
Step 16
The number of stations monitoring upstream of mining or geothermal areas;
Step 17
The number of stations monitoring downstream of mining or geothermal
areas;
Step 18
The number of upstream boundary stations;
Step 19
The number of downstream boundary stations;
Step 20
The number of stations in representative locations in rivers, coastal
areas, impoundments;
Step 21
Sum the scores for all categories of stations for which number of stations
22
-------
was scored, and record the number in Table 7.
Step 22
Divide the sum of Step 21 by the number of categories evaluated, and
record the value in Table 7. This decimal, expressed as percent, provides an
overall rating r^ for the sub-Element, the Number of Stations by category
in the Primary network segments. If the segment is representative of the
network, this will serve as a network rating.
III.A.2 Rating of Stations Monitoring Point Source Discharges
Monitoring receiving waters above and below point source discharges
serves as a check on the Permit monitoring in the effluent streams, and is a
necessary function for compliance and enforcement. A rapid evaluation of such
monitoring is detailed in the following seven Procedural Steps. Table 8 is
provided for recording, and the Source Reference items in Table 2 are noted
for each Step in the Table.
Step 1
Record the total number of point source discharges in the segment.
Step 2
Sum and record the number of discharges (D) monitored upstream (see
footnote to item 4, Table 2).
Step 5
Divide the number recorded in Step 2 by the number in Step 1, and record
the answer in the score column.
Step 4
Sum and then record the number of point source discharges monitored
downstream.
Step 5
Divide the number in Step 4 by the number in Step 1, and record the
answer in the score column.
Step 6
Sum the two scores.
Step 7
Divide the sum by 2 to obtain the value of r2, the rating of the sub-
Element, Point Source Discharge Monitoring in the segment. Since this segment
23
-------
was selected as representative of the network, the rating (where 1 is the op-
timal value) should also be representative of the network.
If the value of Step 7 is 1, the monitoring with respect to point source
discharges is optimal. The percentage less than 1 indicates the percentage
of point source discharges that are not being monitored.
TABLE 8. RATING OF STATIONS MONITORING POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES
Steps
Step 1.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
Step 5.
Step 6
Step 7
Source Ref .
Table 2
Item
1.
4. a
4.b
Sum score Step 3 +
Sub-Element rating
Number of
Point Number
Discharges Monitored Score
' ' ' *
. ' ^ -, -. f
. r ....>. ._
4 *
Step 2/Step 1
, f f*,
f f "" f f
Step 4/Step 1
score Step 5 =
r2 = Step 6/2 =
III.A.3 Rating for the Element
Calculate R., the rating for this Element by summing the following two
products:
From Table 7, record the value of r, x (.80) =
From Table 8, record the value of r2 x (.20) =
Element Rating = R, =
III.B RATING OF EFFECTIVENESS OF STATION LOCATION
The rating of the effectiveness of station location is actually based on
cost-effectiveness. It is assumed that each station is properly located
to monitor effects on the receiving waters of those activities designated
for the station to monitor. In this element, the number of stations in
the primary network segment is compared with the number of activities
24
-------
monitored, to determine the ratio. In general, station locations are
considered effective if the number of activities monitored is greater than
the number of stations.
There may be exceptions to the general definition of an effective
station location, due to specific regional problems that may require more
than one station to monitor effects of only one activity. Such stations
are usually part of the secondary network. If such conditions exist in
the segment chosen for evaluation, and if the stations are considered part
of the primary network, the Rating of this element does not change, but the
condition should be noted for special consideration.
The procedures are listed as Steps, with Table 9 for recording values
of items in Source Reference Table 2. Figure 1 is provided for the evalua-
tion.
Procedural Steps
Step 1
Record in Table 9 the sum of the existing effectively contributing
stations in the segment. (They are listed by Agency, but record the total
number, item 3.}
Step 2
Sum the existing totals for the two Region types in item 18, and record
that number as "Total Activities" in Table 9.
Step 3
Divide the total of Step 2 by the value of Step 1, and record the value
as the score.
TABLE 9. SCORE FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF STATION LOCATIONS
Source Ref.
table 2. Number of Total
item stations activities Score
Step 1 3
Step 2 18
Step 3
(Step 2/Step 1)
25
-------
Step 4
Locate the score for Station Location on the horizontal axis of Figure 1,
locate the intersection of that value on the plot, read the Element Rating on
the vertical axis, and record it.
R_ = Element Rating = .
The closer the Element Rating value is to 1, the more cost-effective are
the station locations.
o.6
PJ
0.2
±ti
1.5
2
SCORE
2.5
Figure 1. Rating for station location
III.C EVALUATION OF AREA OF PLAN AND DESIGN
The Evaluation of this Area is derived by summing the weighted Ratings of both
Elements.
From Section III.A.3, Rj = Rating for number of Stations
Then RA = RX x (.386) = .
From Section III.B, R2 = Rating for Station Effectiveness =
Then RB = R2 x (.614) = .
Area Evaluation = R. +
The optimal area evaluation is 1.
26
-------
SECTION IV
EVALUATION OF PERSONNEL
In this Section, two Elements are Rated: (1) Optimal Budgetary Alloca-
tions to Administrative and non-Administrative Personnel; (2) Technical
Services Personnel Qualifications. The two Element ratings are then
weighted using factors derived from the Letter Survey, and combined to
provide an Area Evaluation.
IV.A BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS
In this Element, the Rating is derived from information in Table 6 and
from Figures 2 and 3. The procedure is described in the following Steps.
Procedural Steps
Step 1
From Table 6, item 7, the Total Network Personnel Budget =
Step 2
From Table 6, item 2, the Total Technical Services Budget =
(Sum of Monitoring + Lab 5 Data Analysis + Compliance)
Step 3
The value of Step 1 divided by Step 2 =
Step 4
From Table 6, record the value of item 6 for Administration
and Public Information =
Step 5
Locate the point on Figure 2 that represents the value determined in
Step 3 along the horizontal axis and the value in Step 4 along the vertical
axis.
Step 6
If the point determined in Step 5 is in the shaded region of Figure 2,
record in Step 13 the value 1 as the Budgetary Allocation Rating, and pro-
ceed to Section B. If the point is in the unshaded area, (above Curve A)
proceed to Step 7.
27
-------
m t> CH
"** o »
o <- o ss
""' £ d. Q.
|J|
JsS
cr
3
00
o
o
§
CQ
tu
o.
0.6 0.7
0.8 0.9 1.0 1-1 1.2 1.3
TOTAL NETWORK PERSONNEL BUDGET
TOTAL TECH. SERV. BUDGET
1.4 1.5
Figure 2. Determination of administrative personnel budget allocation
-------
Step 7
If the point located in Step 5 is not in the shaded region of Figure 2
(i.e., it is above curve A), determine the value on the vertical axis of the
location on Curve A immediately below the point, and record the value
Step 8
Record the value of item 8, Table 6
Step 9
The value of Step 7 divided by Step 8
Step 10
The value of Step 4 divided by Step 7 =
Step 11
In Figure 3, the line whose S* value is closest to the
value of Step 9 =
Step 12
Locate the value of Step 10 along the horizontal axis of Figure 3.
Locate the intersection of that value with the line determined in Step 11.
At the corresponding point on the vertical axis, read the Budgetary-
Allocation-to-Administrative-Personnel Rating. Record the value in
Step 13.
Step 13
Budgetary-Allocation Rating =
IV.B TECHNICAL SERVICES PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
This Element is divided into the two sub-Elements of Experience and
On-Job Formal Training, which are rated separately, using information in
Table 3, and Figures 4 and 5. The results are then combined to derive the
Elemental Rating, using weighting factors from the Letter Survey.
IV.B.I Experience Rating and Procedural Steps
Step 1
Sum the years (in Table 3, column 2) that all Technical Services Person-
nel (i.e., all non-Administrative Personnel) have been in their present posi-
tions, divide by the number of such personnel, and list the result ,
29
-------
n
E-
UJ
C/D
6
H
§
HH
g
o
E-i
OJ
CJ
a
1.0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
BUDGETARY ALLOCATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
OPTIMAL BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS TO ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
Figure 3. Budgetary-allocation-to-administrative-personnel rating
|[|0.45
3.0
-------
Step 2
On the horizontal axis of Fig. 4, locate the value of Step 1.
Locate the intersection of that value with the curve, and read the
corresponding value on the vertical axis. Record that value, the
Experience rating for Technical Services Personnel =
IV.B.2 Special On-Job Formal Training Rating and Procedural Steps
"Special On-Job Formal Training" consists of training courses, available
to personnel who have been employed by the network for a minimum of 1 year.
Successful completion of a course allows advancement to a higher salary level
more rapidly than by normal promotion. If the network does not offer such
training or make it available to personnel, skip the calculations of this
Section, and fill in 0 for the Rating in Step 4. If such training is avail-
able, proceed with the following Steps to determine the Training Rating.
The column numbers in the Procedural Steps reference the numbered
columns of Table 3.
Step 1
List the number of Technical Services Personnel for whom training
programs are available (column 7) .
Step 2
List the total number of Technical Services Personnel (column 1)
Step 3
Divide the number listed in Step 1 by the number listed in Step 2 and
record the value of f, the fraction of Technical Services Personnel for
whom training is available; f =
Step 4
Use Figure 5 to determine the rating value for training available to
Technical Services Personnel. The result of Section IV.B.I, Step 1, lists
the average years of experience in position for Technical Services Personnel.
Four curves are shown in Figure 5 for average years experience. Select the
curve that most closely matches the result of Section IV.B.I, Step 1. Locate
the intersection of the value of f (recorded in Step 3, above}, which is
plotted on the horizontal axis of Figure 5, with the selected curve. Then
determine the corresponding value of Training on the vertical axis. Training
rating =
31
-------
CM
to
AVERAGE YEARS IN PRESENT POSITION
Figure 4. Experience rating curve
-------
j Average Experience of 1 year
Average Experience of 3 years ffl|[|H}|t|jj[jH
Average Experience of 5 years MtiJTuftttllifflTTrriLLCfflini
Training Rating
Average Experience 10 years or moreSfllttffffl
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
f(FRACTION OF PERSONNEL FOR WHOM TRAINING IS AVAILABLE)
Figure 5. Rating for on-job training program
-------
IV.B.3 Rating of Personnel Qualifications
A Rating of Personnel Qualifications is provided by the sum of the
following two weighted ratings:
0.554 x Experience rating of Section B.I, Step 2 = .
0.446 x Training rating of Section B.2, Step 4 = .
Personnel Qualifications Rating = Sum = .
IV.C EVALUATION OF AREA OF PERSONNEL
An Evaluation of the Area of Personnel is provided by the sum of
weighted Element Ratings:
0.471 x (Budgetary Allocation Rating of Section IV.A, Step 13) = _
0.529 x (Personnel Qualifications Rating of Section IV.B.3) =
Area Evaluation = Sum =
34
-------
SECTION V
EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
All Elements concerning Laboratory equipment and instruments should be
rated. If the network does not operate its own laboratory, the ratings
should be done with respect to the laboratory that performs the anal-
yses. All Items rated affect efficiency and effectiveness of opera-
tions. The information needed has been recorded in Table 4. The
rating process is one of recording the value of the Item in Table 10,
multiplying that value by the listed weighting factor, and recording
the "rating" for each Item. With one exception, the value of each Item
is explicit in Table 4, either as a percentage, which is recorded in
Table 10 as a decimal number, as a specified numerical value, or as a
"Yes," which has a value of 1, or a "No," which has a value of 0. The
one value not in Table 4 concerns equipment, which is rated in Element
V.B, and will be defined there.
Use Table 10 to record the values and determine the "ratings" for the
Items of each Element and the Element Ratings. The Source Reference is given
in the first column of Table 10 for each Item, an abbreviated title is given
in the second column, the third space is blank for recording the value of
the Item, and a weighting factor is given for each Item in the fourth column.
Weighting factors are derived from responses to the Letter Survey. The
product of the value and the weighting factor is the "rating," to be recorded
in the fifth column, for each Item. The Element Rating is recorded in the
sixth column, headed R^. The methodology is explained in detail for the first
Element, Office Facilities.
V.A OFFICE FACILITIES
Only two Items are considered significant in affecting the efficiency of
the operations in this Element: Space Allocation and Availability of Refer-
ence Documents. The method for rating each and for deriving the Element
Rating are given in the following Steps.
Procedural Steps
Step 1
In Table 10 (at the end of this Section), record the value for Space
Allocation: from the response to item l.a in Table 4, determine the "value,"
i.e., if 100% of office personnel have a minimum of 100 sq.ft. (9.29 m'2) per
person, the value is 1; if 75% of office personnel have a minimum of 100 sq.ft,
per person, the value is 0.75.
35
-------
Step 2
Multiply the recorded value by the listed weighting factor of .467 and
record the result in the "rating" column.
Step 3
Record the value for Availability of Reference Documents. If the response
to item l.b, Table 4 is "Yes," the value is 1; if the response is "No," the
value is 0.
Step 4
The "rating" for the Item is then either 1 x 0.533 = 0.533, or 0.
Step 5
Sum the two Item "ratings" to determine the value of R, and record the
result in the R. column.
V.B LABORATORY FACILITIES
Note: If the network does not operate its own laboratory, these ratings
and those relating to Laboratory Instruments should be carried out,
using information on the laboratory that performs the analyses.
The Element of Laboratory Facilities is divided into five sub-Elements,
each of which is composed of several Items. Follow the procedure detailed
for Element A to determine a "rating" for each Item in sub-Element 1, in
Table 10. Sum the five "ratings" and record the result for r^. Follow the
same procedure for sub-Elements 2 and 3. In sub-Element 4, the value of
average equipment age is given a value, depending on the response to item
2.d (4) in Table 4. If the
average age is 1 to 3 years, the value is 1;
average age is 3 to 6 years, the value is 0.8;
average age is 6 to 10 years, the value is 0.5.
Follow the methodology as above, and determine and record "ratings" for r.
and for rs. The Rating for the Element, R2, is derived by summing
r, + r2 + r3 + r4 + rg and is recorded in the R. column.
V.C LABORATORY INSTRUMENTS
The "value" of each Item is that recorded for the referenced item in
Table 4. Use Table 10 to record the rating for each, and the Element Rating.
36
-------
V.D LABORATORY INSTRUMENT QUALIFICATIONS
For this Element, if the response to referenced items in Table 4 is
"yes," the value of the Item is 1; if the response is "No," the value is 0.
Record the value and rating for each item in Table 10, and derive and record
the Element Rating.
V.E FIELD FACILITIES
Derive and record the rating for each Item listed, and for the Element.
The value of each Item is determined by the answers in the Source References
of Table 4. If the percentage of stations with permanent housing is 50% or
more, record the value as 1. If the percentage is less than 50%, the value
is the actual percent divided by 50%, e.g., if 25% of the stations have per-
manent housing, the value would be 0.25/0.5 = 0.5. For the other Items, the
values are 1 if the answer is yes, or 0 if the answer is no.
V.F FIELD INSTRUMENTS
Derive and record a rating for each Item listed, and for the Element.
The values of the first four items are explicit, either 1 or 0. For the
fifth item, if 50% or more of the stations have fixed monitors, the value is
1. If less than 50%, the value is the percentage expressed as a decimal,
divided by 0.5.
V.G AREA EVALUATION
Record the Rating for each Element, multiply that by the listed weighting
factor, and record the product as the Relative Rating (Rel R) of each Element
in the Area. The Area Evaluation is the sum of the Relative Ratings. Note
that the maximum score would be 1.0, or 100%. Thus, if the Evaluation is
0.94, the major Facilities and Equipment affecting network effectiveness are
within 6% of being optimal. In addition, the degree to which each Element is
performing with respect to the Area can be gauged by how close the Relative
Rating is to the listed weighting factor, and the efficiency of each Element
can be gauged by how close the Element Rating is to 1.
37
-------
TABLE 10. RATINGS FOR FACILITIES
Source ref.
table 4
item number
Item
Value x wt. factor = rating
l.a.
l.b.
2.a.(1)
2.a.(2)
2.a.(3)
2.a.(4)
2.a.(5)
2.b.(2)
2.b.(3)
2.b.(4)
CD
(2)
(3)
(4)
2.C.C5)
2.c
2.c
2.c
2.C
2.d.(2)
2.d.(3)
2.d.(4)
2.d.(5)
2.d.(6)
2.d.
2.d.
2.d.
2.d.
2.d.
2.d.
2.d.
(7) (a)
(7)(b)
(7) W
C7) (d)
(7) (e)
(7) (f)
(7)(g)
2.d.(7)(h)
A. Office Facilities
Space Allocation
Availability of Reference
Documents
B. Laboratory Facilities
1. Space
Individual space allocation
Bench-top space
Hood space adequacy
Drawer space
Locked area availability
2. Cleanliness
Checks on area cleanliness
Checks on hood cleanliness
Availability of safety showers
Debris-free exits
3. Environmental Control
Refrig/freezer storage
Dark dry storage
Ref. material cold storage
Separate hood exhausts
All hoods operable
4. Equipment
Permanent set up availability
Quality of volumetric glassware
Quality of plastic vessels
Avg. equipment age
Fritted ware availability
Storage of fritted ware
5. Availability of Support Facilities
Incubator
Still
Ovens
Water baths
Recorders
NBS thermometer
Compressed air
Constant voltage source
Selective ion electrodes
0.467
0.533
R, = sum =
0.040
0.042
0.041
0.040
0.042
r. = sum
057
058
031
030
= sum
0.042
0.035
0.031
0.031
0.031
r_ = sum =
0.045
0.044
0.044
0.036
0.036
0.026
4 = sum =
0.022
0.030
0.022
0.022
0.026
0.023
0.023
0.028
0.022
r. = sum =
38
-------
TABLE 10. fcontinuedl
Source ref .
table 4
item number
3.a.(l)
3.a.(2)
3.a.(3)
3. a. (4)
3.a.(5)
3.a.(6)
3.a.(7)
3.a.(8)
3.a.(9)
3. a. (10)
3.b.(l)
3.b.(2)
3.b.(3)
3.b.(4)
v » *r » ^ f
4. a. (1)
4. a. (2)
4. a. (3)
4. a. (4)
4.b.(l)
4.b.(2)
4.b.(3)
4.b.(4)
4 c fll
Item
C . Laboratory Instrument s
Availability of:
Analytical balances
Potential (pH meter)
Conductivity meter
Turbidimeter
Visual Spectrophotometer
U.V. Spectrophotometer
I.R. Spectrophotometer
A. A. Spectrophotometer
Total Carbon Analyzer
Gas Chromatograph
D. Lab. Instrument Qualifications
Analytical balances
pH meters
Turbidimeter
Overall sensitivity S precision
E. Field Facilities
Permanent housing
Fully equipped mobile lab.
Portable equipment vehicle
Portable refrigerated containers
F. Field Instruments
Availability of Portable:
pH meter
Conductivity meter
DO meter
Wet-analytical gear
Fixed Monitors
G. Area Evaluation
Record values of: R.
R;
R,
*a
A
BS
Value x wt. factor = rating Rj
0.128
0.102
0.100
0.086
0.118
0.076
0.076
0.120
0.095
0.099
R, = sum »
0.25
0.13
0.07
0.55
R4 = su»
0.207
0.255
0.283
0.255
Rs = sum =
0.153
0.102
0.256
0.102
0.387
R, = sum =
6
Values x wt. factor = Rel. R.
0.109
0.184
0.189
0.190
0.149
0.179
Area Evaluation = Sum Rel. R.
39
-------
SECTION VI
EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF SAMPLING
Relative to the Area of Sampling, only two major Elements are considered:
(1) Parameters monitored as a function of station location and Region
types; and (2) Frequency of monitoring. Analytical procedures are con-
sidered in the Area of Quality Assurance. The selected segment will be
used as a representative of the network.
VI.A. RATING OF PARAMETERS MONITORED
In the Rating of parameters monitored, the indicator parameters, as func-
tions of Region type and Station-use (defined in the Introduction, Table 1)
are used as weighting factors in the rating method. Because tight constraints
are placed on effluent discharges, indicator parameters are limited, except
upstream and downstream of point source discharges.
Table 11 is provided as a work sheet for rating the parameters monitored
in each category, and Table 12 provides the weighting factors for the indi-
cator parameters for the various station categories and two Region types. The
procedures are again indicated in Steps, with Source references in either
Table 2 or 12, as indicated. The procedure, the same for each Step through
21, is as follows: on the first line for each Step, or category, that is
applicable, record in Table 11 the Region type (from Table 1) and the "value"
for each parameter, which is the Table 2 value of N, expressed as a decimal
number. On the next line of the Step, record as the weight, the weight given
in Table 12 for the appropriate indicator parameters, by category and Region
types. On the third line of the Step, record the rating, which is the product
of the value times the weight for each indicator parameter. Then sum the
ratings and record that sum as the category rating in the right-hand column.
In Step 21, sum all the category ratings, and record the value. Step 22
provides the Rating for parameters monitored, the sum of the category ratings
divided by the number of categories considered.
VLB RATING FOR FREQUENCY OF MONITORING
The segment selected in Section II to provide information for the data
base will again be used as representative of the primary network operations.
Parameters monitored have been divided into five groups, as shown in Table 13.
The first Step of this rating procedure consists of recording in Table 13 the'
average frequency of monitoring each group of parameters for each applicable
category. The Source reference items (in Table 2) are listed in the first
column of Table 13. Frequency of monitoring, which was coded by letter in
Table 2, is interpreted numerically in this rating procedure.
40
-------
TABLE 11. EVALUATION OF PARAMETERS MONITORED
The rating for each parameter is the product of the value times the weight
Value of Step 21 divided by number of Categories
-------
TABLE 12. WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR INDICATOR PARAMETERS BY CATEGORY
1. Receiving Waters Up- or Downstream of Significant
Point Source Discharges
Parameter
Weighting
factor
Trace metals
Toxic materials
Algal nutrients
Bacteriological parameters
Biota/species diversity
Temperature
DO
Specific conductance
Turbidity
PH
Alkalinity/acidity
0.111
0.111
0.102
0.094
0.084
0.094
0.099
0.082
0.057
0.084
0.084
Region of "Normal" Rainfall
2. Up- and Downstream of Municipal and Industrial Centers
Weighting
factor
Parameter
Bacteriological parameters
DO
Biota/species diversity
pH
Turbidity/suspended solids
0.237
0.218
0.202
0.175
0.168
3. Up and Downstream of Urban/Suburban Areas
Weighting
factor
Parameter
DO
Bacteriological parameters
Algal nutrients
Turbidity
0.291
0.282
0.2S5
0.171
Arid Region
Parameter
Parameter
Weighting
factor
Bacteriological parameters
DO
Biota/species diversity
PH
Turbidity/suspended solids
Alkalinity
Specific conductance
Algal nutrients
0.157
0.144
0.133
0.115
0.111
0.1S5
0.078
0.148
Weighting
factor
DO
Bacteriological parameters
Algal nutrients
Turbidity
Alkalinity
Specific conductance
pH
0.162
0.157
0.142
0.095
0.154
0.136
0.154
42
-------
TABLE 12. (continued)
4. Drinking Water Uptakes, Reservoirs, Recreational Water Bodies
Weighting Weighting
»«-«» "" Parameters
Bacteriological Parameters
Toxic Materials
Trace Metals
DO
Algal Nutrients
Turbidity/Suspended Solids
Biota/Species Diversity
Temperature
pH
Specific conductance
0.141
0.120
0.120
0.109
0.091
0.091
0.090
0.085
0.082
0.070
S. Watershed/Wilderness area
a. Upstream
Weighting
factor
Parameters
DO
Biota/Species Diversity
Temperature
Turbidity/Suspended Solids
Algal Nutrients
Specific conductance
pH
Trace Metals
b. Downstream
Parameters
DO
Temperature
Algal Nutrients
Trace Metals
0.162
0.1SS
0.154
0.154
0.145
0.102
0.068
0.060
Weighting
factor
0.311
0.295
0.278
0.115
Region of Average Rainfall
Bacteriological Parameters
Toxic Materials
Trace Metals
DO
Algal Nutrients
Turbidity/Suspended Solids
Biota/Species Diversity
Temperature
pH
Specific conductance
Alkalinity
0.131
0.111
0.111
0.100
0.084
0.084
0.084
0.078
0.076
0.064
0.076
Weighting
factor
Parameters
DO
Biota/Species Diversity
Temperature
Turbidity/Suspended Solids
Algal Nutrients
Specific conductance
pH
Trace Metals
Alkalinity
Parameters
DO
Temperature
Algal Nutrients
Trace Metals
Alkalinity
pll
Specific conductance
0.154
0.147
0.146
0.146
0.137
0.097
0.065
0.057
0.053
Weighting
factor
0.213
0.203
0.191
0.079
0.090
0.090
0.134
Arid Region
6. Upstream and Downstream of Irrigated Farmland
Weighting
factor
Parameter Parameter
DO 0.357
Bacteriological parameters 0.286
Turbidity/suspended solids 0.214
Algal nutrients 0.143
DO
Bacteriological parameters
Turbidity/suspended solids
Algal nutrients
Alkalinity
Specific conductance
pH
Weighting
factor
0.217
0.174
0.130
0.087
0.130
0.130
0.130
43
-------
TABLE 12. (continued)
7. Mining or Geothermal Regions
Weighting
Parameter factor
Trace metals
Toxic materials
Specific conductance
pH
Alkalinity/acidity
Turbidity/suspended solids
0.20
0.20
0.20
O.IS
O.IS
0.10
Weighting
Parameter factor
Trace metals
Toxic materials
Specific conductance
PH
Alkalinity/acidity
Turbidity/suspended solids
0.20
0.20
0.20
O.IS
0.15
0.10
8. Boundary Stations, Up and Downstream
Parameter
Weighting
factor
Parameter
DO
Biota/species diversity
Temperature
Turbidity
Algal nutrients
Specific conductance
Alkalinity/acidity
pH
0.168
0.160
0.159
0.159
0.107
0.106
0.071
0.071
Weighting
factor
DO
Biota/species diversity
Temperature
Turbidity
Algal nutrients
Specific conductance
Alkalinity/acidity
pH
0.168
0.160
0.159
0.159
0.107
0.106
0.071
0.071
9.
Parameters measured at mouths of tributaries to mainstem rivers or at representative locations will
depend on activities being monitored, and therefore will fall into one of the categories above.
10. Eutrophic or Potentially Eutrophic Water Bodies
Weighting
Parameter factor
Algal nutrients
DO
Turbidity
Temperature
0.333
0.333
0.167
0.167
NONE
44
-------
TABLE 13. FREQUENCY OF MONITORING
Record for each of the categories applicable to the segment, the average frequency of monitoring
the five groups of parameters shown. Express the average frequency numerically, as follows:
C = Continuous = 30
D = Daily
K = Weekly
M = Monthly
= 20
= 4
= 1.0
bM = bimonthly =0.5
Q = Quarterly =0.33
T = Three times/
year =0.25
SY = Semiannually= 0.167
Y = Annually = 0.083
Station category
Table 2.
Source item
Step 1
4a
4b
5a
5b
6a
6b
7
8
9
lOa
lOb
11
12
13a
13b
14a
14b
15
16
17
Step 2
Total
Step 3
No. categories
Step 4
Overall average
(Step 2/Step 3)
Step 5
Rating
Trace metals
Toxic materials
(avg. freq.)
Plankton
(avg. freq.)
Other biota
(avg. freq.)
All other
water quality
parameters
(avg. freq.)
Step 6 Sum of 5 ratings
Step 7 R_ = Rating
Sum of ratings _
Hydrological
parameters
(avg. freq.)
45
-------
Numerical values for each frequency code are given at the top of Table 13.
The values are based on recommended minimum monitoring frequencies listed in
the U.S. EPA, June 1975.
After recording the average monitoring frequency for each group of para-
meters in each applicable category, if the average frequency in each category
within the group is the same, record that value as the Overall average in
Step 4. If the frequency varies within the group, carry out the calculations
of Steps 2, 3, and 4, to determine the Overall average.
Locate the Overall average frequency of monitoring for each group of
parameters on the horizontal axis of Figures 6, 7, or 8 (the figure title
indicates the group with which it is used). Determine the rating for each
group, i.e., the point on the vertical axis that corresponds to the inter-
section of the Overall average value with the plot. Record those values in
Step 5.
Steps 6 and 7 provide the Rating for the Element. The value of 1 is the
optimal Rating.
VI.C EVALUATION OF AREA OF SAMPLING
An Evaluation for the parameters monitored and the frequency of monitor-
ing is obtained by multiplying each Rating times a weighting factor, and sum-
ming the two results. The weighting factors are derived from the Letter Sur-
vey.
Source Rating x Weighting Factor = Relative Evaluation
Table 11 (R^ 0.54
Table 13 (R2) 0.46 =
Evaluation = Sum =
The optimal evaluation is 1.
46
-------
0.10.2 0.3
OVERALL AVG.
Figure 6. Rating for monitoring frequency
of trace metals/toxic materials
and biota
0.1 0.2 0.3
OVERALL AVG.
Figure 7. Rating for monitoring frequency
of plankton
1
r
0.5
-;! s^^^^tefe^s
... .^-4-4^-" L/^'-j-rH-f+T-'-^-Eh-')--
?R
i^tfc
0.5 1 2
OVERALL AVG.
Figure 8. Rating for monitoring frequency
of other water quality and
hydrological parameters
47
-------
SECTION VII
EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF QUALITY ASSURANCE
Six Elements are rated in this Section. The rating procedure is similar
to that in previous Sections. The value of each item is determined from
the Source Reference item in Table 4, listed in the first column of
Table 14. As in previous cases, the Source Reference items provide
values of 1, 0, or the decimal equivalent of a percentage, with a few
exceptions in Elements E and F, which are defined below. Record R, the
rating for each Element, in the column headed R.. Element E contains
eight sub-Elements, ratings for which are recorded in the column headed
"rate," and they are summed and weighted at the end of the Element, as
indicated in the Table.
Table 14 is located at the end of this Section.
VILA FIELD INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION
Record in Table 14 the value and rate for each item, and the Element
Rating, Rr
VII.B FIELD INSTRUMENT MAINTENANCE
Record in Table 14 the value and rate for each item, and the Element
Rating, R^
VII.C FIELD MEASUREMENT CONTROLS
Record in Table 14 the value and rate for each item, and the Element
Rating, R_.
o
VII.D LABORATORY INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION
Record in Table 14 the value and rate for each item, and the Element
Rating, R..
VII.E LABORATORY MEASUREMENT CONTROLS
This Element is composed of eight sub-Elements, each of which has several
components. Calculations are the same as those for the previous Elements;
however, each sub-Element rating is the sum of the ratings of its components.
The method for rating the Element is given in Table 14. Values for components
of sub-Elements 1 through 4 are explicit in Table 4. The derivation follows
for those values that are not explicit for the remaining sub-Elements.
48
-------
Sub-Element 5, Validation Techniques Values are determined as follows:
(1) if replicate analyses are performed at least for every set
of samples (or approximately 20 samples), the value is 1;
if less frequently, the value is 0.
(2) The value is 1 if all three responses are "yes"; value is 0.67
if two responses are "yes"; value is 0.33 if one response is
"yes"; value is 0 if there are no "yes" responses.
(3) The value is 1 if spiked samples are run for approximately
every 20 samples; the value is 0 if run less frequently.
(4) The value is 1 for a "yes", 0 for a "no".
Sub-Element 6, Documented Check lists. The values are 1 for "yes", 0 for "no".
Sub-Element 7, Records. The value for item Source Reference 6.(f) is 1 if
permanent records are in bound notebooks, 0 if on unbound sheets.
Sub-Element 8, Quality Assurance Program. The value is 1 if the percentage
of committed resources is 15% or more. If the percentage is less than 15%,
the value is the decimal equivalent of the percentage divided by 0.15.
The Element Rating R^, is the sum of the products of each sub-Element
rate and a weighting factor, as indicated in Table 14.
VII.F FACTORS AFFECTING LABORATORY SUPPLIES
Record the value and rate for each item and the Element Rating, R^.
VII.G AREA EVALUATION
An evaluation is derived for the Area of Quality Assurance by summing
the products of each Rating and its weighting factor. The weights are given
in Table 14. A final evaluation of 1 is the optimal value.
49
-------
TABLE 14-. RATING FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE
Source ref .
Table 4.
4.d.
CD
(2)
(3)
(4)
4.e.
(1)
(2)
(3)
4.f.
CD
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
3.c.
(1)
(2)
(3)
3.c.
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Item
A. Field Instrument Calibration
Field meters
Fixed sensors
Calibration frequency
Use of documentation
B. Field Instrument Maintenance
Documentation of schedule
Use of documentation
Calibration frequency
C. Field Measurement Controls
Downtime documentation/eval .
Validation of transmitted
data
Validation of secondary
standards
Scheduled preventative inaint.
Stat. control chart
techniques
D. Lab. Instrument Calibration
Documented schedules
Frequency as mfr. recommends
Use of documentation
E. Laboratory Measurement Controls
1. Analytical method
calibrations
Balances serviced
Availability of Class S
weights
Documentation of weight
checks
Spectrophotometer. wave-length
verification
Documentation of (7)
Primary std.Ck.of vol. anal.
Weight
Value x factor = Rate Ri
0.273
0.272
0.245
0.210
R.. = Sum =
0.354
0.326
0.319
R0 = Sum =
0.171
0.232
0.218
0.222
0.157
R, = Sum =
O ^ ^
0.357
0.321
0.322
R^. = Sum =
0.154
0.210
0.090
0.210
0.126
0.210
r.=Sum =
50
-------
TABLE 14. (continued)
Source ref. Weight
Table 4 Item Value x factor = Rate R.
__________ L
5.a. E. Laboratory Measurement Controls
2. Containers, preservation,
holding
(1) Glass containers 0.174
(2) Ref.2 preservation techniques 0.194
(3) Other preservation techniques 0.155
(4) Ref. 2 holding times 0.148
(5) Other holding times 0.135
(6) Sample volumes 0.194
r =Sum =
5.b. 3. Analytical methods
(1) Procedures used 0.300
(2) Procedure write up 0.210
(3) Compliance tests 0.250
(4) Use of stat. control 0.240
r =Sum =
5.c. 4. Cleaning methods
(1) Standard methods 0.384
(2) Special cleaning 0.325
(3) Filter cleaning 0.291
5.d. 5. Validation techniques
r4=Sum
(1) Replicate analyses 0.253
(2) Sample tests 0.283
(3) Spike samples 0.242
(4) Interlab. comparison 0.22
6. a 6. Documented check lists
(1) Compressed air purity 0.144
(2) Distilled water purity 0.252
(3) Deionized water purity 0.244
(4) Vacuum system purity 0.117
(5) Reagents and solvents stds. 0.243
r,=Sum
o
51
-------
TABLE 14. (continued)
Source ref.
Table 4
6.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
00
7.
(a)
(b)
(c)
R5= (.15.,:
2.e. F.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6D
G.
Item
7. Records
Bench record corrections
Signed records
Chain-of - custody
Permanent records
Record form
Numbered samples
Samples logged
8. Quality Assurance Program
Written program
Appointed officer
Committed resources
r + (.115)r + (.120)r_ + (.94)r. +
J_ ^ O ^T
+ (.075}r, + (.175)r_ + (.114)rfi
O / o
Factors Affecting Supplies
Storage
Handling
Std. reference materials
Inventory
Purchasing guidelines
Chemicals dated
Area Evaluation
R -
R2 =
R_ =
R4 =
Rs;
Weight
Value x factor = Rate IL
0.117
0.174
0.148
0.142
0.111
0.123
0.185
r_=Sum =
0.328
0.371
0.301
(.149Dr5
R5 =
0.150
0.150
0.195
0.183
0.104
0.218
Rc=Sum =
0.191
0.152
0.173
0.188
0.180
0.120
Area Evaluation = Sum
52
-------
SECTION VIII
EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF DATA DISTRIBUTION AND DISSEMINATION
Six Items are rated in this Area as listed in Table 15, along with the
Source References and the weighting factors. The sum of the Ratings
provides the Area Evaluation.
Values of the Items in Table 15 are as follows:
(1) The value is 1 if data are available immediately after
processing. If data are released only on a periodic
basis, the value is 0.
(2) For all other Items listed, the value is 1 if the
response is "yes", 0 if "no".
Calculate the Rating for each, and the Area Evaluation, as indicated in
the Table.
TABLE 15. EVALUATION OF DATA DISTRIBUTION AND UTILIZATION
Source
Table 5 Item Value x Weight = R
1. Data turnaround time x 0.190 =
2. Data supplied to STORET 0.143
3. Data release to public 0.143
4. Data used to develop models 0.143
5. Enforcement support 0.238
6. Data flow to next higher agency 0.143
Area Evaluation = Sum =
53
-------
SECTION IX
EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF AGENCY INTERACTION
In this Section, the amount of interaction with other agencies is
measured by the number of effectively contributing stations operated
by other agencies. The selected segment will again be used as repre-
sentative of the network.
AMOUNT OF INTERACTION
For this Evaluation, all information is in Table 2, items 2 and 3.
Procedural Steps
Step 1
Record the total number of stations in the segment (item 2}.
Step 2
Record the total number of effectively contributing stations
operated by other agencies (item 3). "
Step 3
Divide the number in Step 2 by the number in Step 1, and
record the decimal value.
Step 4
Record the total number of agencies operating effectively
contributing stations.
Step 5
Determination of Rating for effectively Contributing Stations:
If the value of Step 3 is 0.25 or greater, the value for Rating is
1; if it is less than 0.25, divide the actual value by 0.25 to
determine the Rating. Record the result as the Rating for the
Percentage of Stations Contributing Effectively = RI =
Step 6
Determination of Rating for Contributing Agencies:
If the value of Step 4 is 3 or more, the value of the Rating
54
-------
R is 1; if the number is less than 3, divide the actual
number by 3, to determine the value of R_. Record the
result as the Rating for Contributing Agencies = R =
Step 7
To Evaluate the Area, sum the values of RI and R_, and
divide by 2.
Evaluation of Area of Agency Interaction = R.. H- R2
55
-------
SECTION X
OVERALL EVALUATION OF NETWORK OPERATIONS
A final evaluation of network operations is derived by integrating the
individual Area Evaluations. The integration is accomplished by multiplying
each Area Evaluation by a weighting factor derived from the Letter Survey.
Each weighting factor used is derived from the normalized mean responses for
the relative weights of each Area, with respect to meeting the purpose of
documenting progress toward the attainment, or the maintenance, of both am-
bient and discharge water quality objectives.
Record in Table 16 as the "value" the Evaluation derived in each Section,
and multiply each by the indicated weighting factor. Record each product in
the column headed "Relative Evaluation." Sum the Relative Evaluations to
derive the Overall Evaluation. The optimal value is 1.
TABLE 16. OVERALL EVALUATION OF NETWORK OPERATIONS
Source
Section III.C.
Section IV. C.
Table 10
Section VI. C.
Table 14
Table 15
Item
Network Plan and Design
Personnel
Facilities and Equipment
Sampling
Quality Assurance
Data Distribution and
Weight
Value x factor =
x 0.167 =
0.152
0.141
0.150
0.157
Relative
evaluation
Section IX,
Step 7
Utilization 0.115
Agency Interactions 0.118
Sum = Overall Evaluation of Network Operations
56
-------
SECTION XI
EVALUATION OF BUDGET ALLOCATION TO TECHNICAL SERVICES
In this Section, a Rating is derived for the budgetary allocation to the
Technical Services portion of the network. It is considered that Tech-
nical Services is comprised of two groups: A, Water Quality Monitoring
and Laboratory and Data Analysis; and B, Compliance. The budgetary
allocation to the personnel in each group is rated separately. The two
Personnel Ratings are then used to derive a Rating for the allocation
to Technical Services.
XI.A BASIC DATA
Record the basic data for determining Budget Allocation Ratings in
Table 17.
TABLE 17. BASIC BUDGET DATA
Item Value
1. Total Technical Services Personnel Budget
(line 4 of Table 6, Monitoring and Analysis
and Compliance)
2. Total Network Budget
(line 1 of Table 6)
3. Value of Item 1 divided by value of Item 2,
Network Budget Fractional Allocation to
Technical Services Personnel
4. Total Budget Allocation to Technical Services
(line 2 of Table 6)
5. Value of Item 1 divided by value of Item 4,
Technical Services Budget Fractional Allocation
to Personnel
57
-------
XI.B RATING FOR BUDGET ALLOCATION TO SURFACE WATER QUALITY
MONITORING, LABORATORY AND DATA ANALYSIS PERSONNEL
The Rating is derived in the following Steps:
Procedural Steps
Step 1
In Figure 9, locate the intersection of the value of item 3 of Table 17
along the horizontal axis, and the value of item 5, Table 17 along the
vertical axis. If the intersection point lies in the shaded region, follow
the procedures of Step l.a.; if the point lies below the shaded region, fol-
low the procedure of Step l.b.; if the point lies above the shaded region,
follow the procedures of Step I.e.
a. If the point lies in the shaded region, enter the value 1.0
in Step 2.
b. Determine the vertical axis value of a point on curve A
immediately above the calculated point. In the lower half
of Figure 10 find the r* curve closest to this vertical
axis value. On this r? curve, locate the value determined
in item 5 of Table 17, along the horizontal axis. Then
read the Budget Allocation Rating for this point on the
vertical axis. Record this Budget Allocation Rating in
Step 2.
c. Determine the vertical axis value of a point on curve B
immediately below the calculated point. In the upper half
of Figure 10 find the r| curve closest to this vertical
axis value. On this r* curve, locate the value determined
in item 5 of Table 17, along the horizontal axis. Then
read the Budget Allocation Rating for this point on the
vertical axis, and record the value as the Budget Alloca-
tion Rating in Step 2.
Step 2
The Rating of the Budgetary Allocation to Surface Water Quality Monitor-
ing and Laboratory and Data Analysis Personnel = .
XI.C RATING FOR BUDGETARY ALLOCATION TO COMPLIANCE PERSONNEL
Procedural Steps
Step 1
Follow the instructions of XI.B, Step 1, but use Figure 11 instead of
Figure 10. Enter the result in Step 2, below.
58
-------
en
to
ofi
B4
o,
O
-4
I
PH
CJ3
M
CO
_)
u
1.0
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 .0
NETWORK BUDGET FRACTIONAL ALLOCATION TO TECHNICAL SERVICES PERSONNEL
Figure 9. Determination of technical services personnel budget allocation
-------
1.0
0.8
0.08
0 0
.10 .20 .30
TECHNICAL SERVICES BUDGET FRACTIONAL ALLOCATION TO PERSONNEL
Figure 10. Surface water monitoring,laboratory, and data analysis
60
-------
O
I-J
_J
<
H
§
03
TECHNICAL SERVICES BUDGET FRACTIONAL ALLOCATION TO PERSONNEL
Figure 11. Compliance personnel budget allocation rating
61
-------
Step 2
The Rating of the Budgetary Allocation to
Compliance personnel =
XI.D EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES BUDGET ALLOCATION
Procedural Steps
Step 1
Determine the fraction of the total Technical Services
budget (line 2 in Table 6) that is allocated to compliance
monitoring.
Step 2
Compute 1 minus value recorded in Step 1 above.
Step 5
The product of the value recorded in XI.D., Step 1 times
the value of the Rating of the Budget Allocation to Compliance
Personnel (XI.C, Step 2) =
Step 4
The product of the value recorded in XI.D., Step 2 times
the value of the Rating of the Budget Allocation to Surface
Water Quality Monitoring and Laboratory and Data Analysis
Personnel (XI.B., Step 1) =
Step 5
The sum of the values of Steps 3 and 4 is the
Evaluation of the Technical Services Budget Allocation =
62
-------
SECTION XII
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 1975. "~~
Code of Federal Regulations:
Title 40, Part 124, "State Program Elements Necessary for Participation
in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System," Dec. 22,
1972, amended July 24, 1973, later amended March 18, 1976.
Title 40, Part 125, "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,"
May 22, 1973, amended July 16, 1975, later amended March 18, 1976.
Title 40, Part 130, "Policies and Procedures for State Continuing Plan-
ning Process," June 3, 1974, amended Nov. 28, 1975 without the term
"State" in Title.
Title 40, Part 131, "Preparation of State Water Quality Management"
Plans," June 3, 1974, amended Nov. 28, 1975.
Title 40, Part 136, "Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants,"
October 16, 1973.
Federal Register:
"Water Quality and Pollutant Source Monitoring," Vol. 39, No. 168,
Appendix A #17, Aug. 28, 1974.
U.S. Congress, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public
Law 92-500, 92nd Congress, Oct. 18, 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Biological Field and Laboratory Methods, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio,
EPA-670/4-73-001, July 1973.
Guidelines for Review of Chemistry Forms, Robert L. Booth, Technical
Coordinator, Methods Development and Quality Assurance Research
Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati,
Ohio, April 1975.
63
-------
Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Labora-
tories, by Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, National Environ-
mental Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1972.
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, Methods Development
and Quality Assurance Research Laboratory, National Environmental
Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA-625/6-74-003, 1974.
Model State Water Monitoring Program, prepared by National Water Monitoring
Panel, edited by Water Monitoring Task Force, R.L. Crim, Chairman,
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials Monitoring and Data Sup-
port Division, EPA-440/9-74-002, June 1975.
64
-------
SECTION XIII
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The source of each definition is either the Code of Federal Regulations
Public Law 92-500, or as indicated.
"Administrator" means the Administrator of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
C40 CFR 124.1 (d)), 1973
"Basin" means the streams, rivers, tributaries, and lakes and
the total land and surface water area contained within one of
the major or minor basins defined by EPA, or any other basin
unit as agreed upon by the State(s) and the Regional Adminis-
trator. Unless otherwise specified, "basin" shall refer only
to those portions within the borders of a single State.
(40 CFR 130.2 (1)), 1974
"Basin Plan" means the water quality management plan for each
hydrologic basin or other approved basin unit within a State.
Such plans form a basis for implementing applicable effluent
limitations and water quality standards, and consist of such
elements as are necessary for sound planning and program man-
agement in the basin covered by the plan. Requirements for
the preparation of basin plans are described in Part 131 of
this chapter.
(40 CFR 130.2 (f)), 1974
"Biological Monitoring" shall mean the determination of the
effects on aquatic life, including accumulation of pollutants
in tissue, in receiving waters due to the discharge of pollutants.
(PL 92-500, Sec. 502 (15))
"Director" means the chief administrative officer of a State
water pollution control agency or interstate agency. In the
event responsibility for water pollution control and enforce-
ment is divided among two or more State or interstate agencies,
the term "Director" means the administrative officer authorized
to perform the particular procedure to which reference is made.
(40 CFR 124.1 (f)), 1973
65
-------
"Discharge" when used without qualification includes a discharge
of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollutants.
(PL 92-500, Sec. 502 (16))
"Minor Discharge" means any discharge which (1) has a total
volume of less than 50,000 gallons on every day of the year,
(2) does not affect the waters of more than one State, and
(3) is not identified by the State water pollution control
agency, the Regional Administrator, or by the Administrator
in regulations issued pursuant to section 307(a) of the Act,
as a discharge which is not a minor discharge. If there is
more than one discharge from a facility and the sum of the
volumes of all discharges from the facility exceeds 50,000
gallons on any day of the year, then no discharge from the
facility is a minor discharge as defined herein.
C40 CFR 125.1 (m)), 1975
"Point Source" means any discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel
or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be
discharged.
(PL 92-500, Sec. 502 (14))
The term "Regional Administrator" means one of the EPA Regional
Administrators.
(40 CFR 124.1 (e)), 1973
"Representative Point" means a location in surface waters,
ground waters, sewer systems, or discharger facilities at
which specific conditions or parameters may be measured in
such a manner as to characterize or approximate the same at
some other location, or throughout a reach, segment, or body
of water.
EPA 440/9-74-002, p. III-4
"Segment" means a portion of a basin, the surface waters of
which have common hydrologic characteristics (or flow regulation
patterns); common natural physical, chemical, and biological
processes; and common reactions to external stresses, such as
the discharge of pollutants.
(40 CFR 130.2 (m)), 1974
"Significant Discharge" means any point source discharge for
which timely management action must be taken in order to meet
the water objectives for the basin within the period of the
operative basin plan. The significant nature of the discharge
is to be determined by the State, but must include, at a
66
-------
minimum, any discharge which is causing or will cause serious
or critical water quality problems relative to the segment to
which it discharges.
(40 CFR 130.2 (n)), 1974
"Toxic Pollutant" means those pollutants, or combinations of
pollutants, including disease-causing agents, which after dis-
charge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimila-
tion into any organism, either directly from the environment
or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, will, on the
basis of information available to the Administrator, cause
death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions
in reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms
or their offspring.
(PL 92-500, Sec. 502 (13))
The following terms are defined in the indicated subparagraphs of
40 CFR 130.2, 1975.
(f) "Water quality management plan" means the plan for managing
the water quality, including consideration of the relation-
ship of water quality to land and water resources and uses,
on an areawide basis, for each EPA/State approved planning
area and for those areas designated pursuant to section 208a
(2), (3), or (4) of the Act within a State.
(g) The term "State planning area" means that area of the State
that is not designated pursuant to section 208(a) (2), (3),
or (4) of the Act Depending upon the requirement being
considered, the State planning area may be subdivided into
"approved planning areas" that may include the entire State
or portions of the State defined by hydrologic, political,
or other boundaries.
(h) The term "designated areawide planning area" means all areas
designated pursuant to section 208(a) (2), (3), or (4) of the
Act and § 130.13.
(o) The term "segment" means a portion of an approved planning
area, the surface waters of which have common hydrologic
characteristics (or flow regulation patterns); common natural
physical, chemical and biological characteristics and pro-
cesses; and common reactions to external stresses, such as
the discharge of pollutants.
&GPO 692-497-1976
67
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/4-76-050
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING OPERATIONS OF WATER
MONITORING NETWORKS
5. REPORT DATE
September 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Ruth W. Shnider and Edwin S. Shapiro
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
URS 7431
9. PERFORMING ORG'\NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
URS Research Company
155 Bovet Road
San Mateo, California 94402
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
IHD 620
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-0473
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
Las Vegas. Nevada 89114
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD, EMSL-LV
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
'The report is designed as a manual to evaluate the efficiency of surface-water
quality monitoring networks whose primary objective is to document compliance with
or progress toward attaining ambient water quality standards. The manual provides
methods to evaluate the efficiency of each of seven operational areas; Network
Plan and Design, Personnel, Facilities and Equipment, Sampling Quality Assurance,
Data Distribution and Dissemination, and Agency Interactions. A technique is
presented for the overall integrated evaluation of the operational areas. A
final section provides methods to evaluate the efficiency of budgetary allocations.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATl Field/Group
Water quality*
Monitoring
Management methods*
Cost engineering
Operations research
Evaluation*
Water Monitoring Networks
Network Operations
Evaluation
Water Quality Indicator
Parameters
13B
14A
14B
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
78
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |