Monitoring is at the heart of the nation’s water quality management effort; without it, enforcement and cleanup programs can be of only limited effectiveness
Water aualitv surveillance: William T. Sayers Water Quality OEce, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D . C .
W
ithin the past several years, we have witnessed an immense increase in public awareness and concern over the quality of the environment. It has become obvious that we, as a nation, must control those practices that despoil our air, water, and land. The time is long past due for us to implement the necessary steps to harmonize our technological society with our natural environment. With respect to abatement of water pollution, efforts of various size and scope have been in practice for nearly a century. Early efforts of state and federal authorities focused on the con-
-*i, N
Mass., Me.,N.H., states Show fede
114 Environmental Science & Technology
.show federel stations only; era1 stattons.
trol of waterborne diseases, such as typhoid fever. Not until 1948, however, was specific water pollution control legislation enacted. Even then, it was of a temporary nature and only a weak forerunner of the Act of 1956, the basis of our present federal water pollution control program. Amendments in 1961, 1965, 1966, and 1970 further strengthened that act to provide today’s far-reaching programs in water quality management. In passing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Congress recognized the primary responsibilities and rights of the states to prevent and con-
feature
the federal-state network
4974 1144 3948 166 548 193 974 1783 65 3074 697 387 1059 580 42 190
trol water pollution. The federal role is designed primarily to supplement state activities. Major activities of the federal Water Quality Office (WQO) include: Providing grants for the construction of municipal waste treatment facilities. Assisting states in the development and administration of water quality standards.
Administering a federal enforcement program against interstate pollution. Supporting research and development activities which seek better methods for controlling all forms of water pollution. Providing technical assistance on complex pollution problems. Encouraging effective river basin planning.
Extending financial and other assistance to state pollution control agencies. The success of water quality management efforts at all levels of government will, in the final analysis, be judged by our ability to provide adequate quantites of water of appropriate quality for all water uses. Water quality and changes in it can be determined most effectively through Volume 5, Number 2, February 1971
115
water quality measurement. Thus, the key to effective water quality management is the ability and capability to measure substances and to understand their behavior in water. Additionally, water quality monitoring provides the only effective yardstick f o r evaluating the efficiency of a water quality management program. The surveillance network described in this article aims to assess existing water quality conditions, to determine long-term trends in water quality, and to evaluate compliance with state-federa1 water quality standards. This information serves to identify existing and emerging problem areas and changes in water quality with time, nationally as well as locally.
Uniform
(100%)
Frequent (*!jWO)
Dissolved Oxygen Radioactivity Piyemeters listed in PH Public Heatth Coliform Ser3ice Drinking Water Stds. Temperature Total Dissolved Floating Solids Solids (Oil-Grease) Settleable Solids Turbidity and/or Color Taste-Odor Toxic Substances
Monitoring needs and responsibilities
The effective management of water quality requires two categories of water quality monitoring. First, monitoring of individual treatment plant influent and effluent is necessary to maintain optimum treatment efficiencies. Effluent monitoring is also essential to assess the individual effects of each waste source on the waters into which they discharge. Second, the rivers, lakes, and coastal waters receiving wastes must be examined to assure attainment and maintenance of desired water quality levels consistent with criteria contained in state-federal water quality standards. Together, these two categories of monitoring will provide the information necessary for efficient management of pollution control facilities and the effective administration of water quality standards. Monitoring of waters receiving wastes can be accomplished in two ways. One is through the operation of a vast network of strategically located long-term stations. A second approach makes use of repeated short-term surveys, each providing limited spatial coverage. Data needs can be met most efficiently by use of both approaches. A nationwide network that uses a minimal number of long-term stations can be used to identify general areas of adverse trends in water quality o r violations of water quality standards. Where such conditions are found to be occurring, short-term surveys can then be conducted to define fully the extent of the problem, plus all factors contributing to the problem. Monitoring of the individual treatment plant influent and effluent is basically the responsibility of pollution control facility managers and of local 116 Environmental Science & Technology
Less Frequent
Least Frequent
WQ%)
(49-20X) Arsenic Barium Cadmium
Bottom Peposits Chromium (trivalent) Electrical Conductance Chromium Ammonia (hexavalent) Acidity Fluoride Alkalinity Lead Selenium Carbon Chloroform Silver Extract Suspended Hydrogen Sulfide Solids Pestiiides Chloride Sodium Copper Iron Nitrate Ptankton Phenols Foaming Phosphate Substances Sulfate Boron Cyanide Manganese Median hardness Tolerance Blochemical Limit Oxy en Demand Methjenh Blue Active Substances Zinc ~
and state pollution control agencies. The enormous investment in pollution control facilities required to restore, preserve, and enhance national water quality dictates that these facilities be managed at least as conscientiously as industrial production processes representing similar investments. Monitoring of the receiving waters to evaluate and enforce water quality standards is the primary responsibility of state water pollution control agencies. The federal government also has certain obligations here, since it may be required to enforce interstate water quality standards when a state fails to exercise its responsibility. The interdependency of these monitoring activities and their common goals require that they be closely COordinated for maximum effectiveness. We cannot afford duplication of effort. The magnitude of the monitoring effort required demands the greatest return on each dollar expended. Present monitoring activities
In designing a nationwide monitoring program to accomplish a specific set of objectives, all pertinent existing monitoring activities at the local, state, and federal levels should be reviewed to determine their usefulness to the proposed system. The map and table on pages 114 and 115 indicate the ex-
tent of present monitoring activities on a nationwide basis. At the local level, most municipal water treatment facilities monitor raw water quality daily. There are about 6000 such facilities served by surface water sources. Thus, considerable information is being gathered on surface water quality in the U.S. by operators of municipal water treatment plants alone. In addition, many municipal waste water treatment programs and county agencies routinely monitor receiving waters upstream and downstream from treatment plant discharges. Many universities also regularly collect water quality data. Most state pollution control agencies have monitoring programs for assessing surface water quality. These programs vary in scope among states and range from near-minimal to complete systems. Other water-oriented state agencies, such as conservation and geology departments, are also engaged in water data acquisition to various degrees. More than a dozen federal agencies are engaged in the direct acquisition of water data. These activities are COordinated through the Office of Water Data Coordination of the U.S. Geological Survey, consistent with a BUreau of Budget requirement for interagency coordination to avoid duplica-
tion of effort. Thc budget agency (now thc Office vf Managcmcnt and Budget) idso advocates thc opcration of a National Nctwork to meet the comnion data nccds of t i u or more fcdera1 agencics. The U S Geological Survey ( ~ J S G S ) has bccn givcn rcsponsibility for thc nianagcment of this network. Data nccds spccific to any onc givcn agency that cannot be met efficiently through thc Nation;tl Network will be obtained by that ngcncy through otlicr mcms. Onc vcry significant fcature of L!SGs's National Network will bc what is rcferrcd to as its Accounting Elemcnt. This clcmcnt will provide an accounting of the quantity and quality of wntcr that flows out of 306 hydrologic basins which cover thc contcrniinous U.S. Surveillance network
To achieve their goal of clcan water,
state and fcdcral pollution control ngcncics arc jointly devcloping a survcillancc nctwork that will scrvc to identify: Compliance and noncomplinnce wilh watcr quality standards,
Watcr quality baselines and trends. Irnprovcments in water quality produced by abatement measurcs being undertaken--c,g., constrriction of wnstc trciitmcnt facilities. * Enicrging water quality problcms, in suficicnt timc to cffcct adequatc prcvcntivc measures. To attain thcsc objcctivcs as efficiently as possible, existing water data acquisition programs of all agcncics will bc utilizcd to the fullest. The first major step in thc dcvclopmcnt OF this statc-fcdcral survcillancc nctwork is to complctc its dcsign. Basic srcps rcqiiircd in the design phasc are: Sccurc agrcernents with statc wiltcr pollution control agencies on current and future monitoring locations, parnmctcr covcragc, and sampling fitqucncies, irrcspective of political boundarics. Review current and proposcd sampling activities o€ state, intcrstatc, and fcdcral agcncics (including thosc of thc h'ational Nctwork managed by uscs) to establish the need for additional stations and (or) supplcmcntary data. * Rcach agrecmcnt among thc statc 0
9
and interstate agencies and the federal Water Quality Office (WQO) as to which agency will take lead responsibility in funding thc new stations and supplementary activities ncedcd, The second major step is implemcntntion of the jointly developed surveillmcc network plans. This is undertaken as the design phase is completed. Impkmentation involves several steps: Completing arrangements €or acquiring data in a timely fashion from various agcncics collecting data of in. tcrest to statc and federal pollution control agencies. Arranging with USGS to operate thosc stations that can best bc handled by it and to expand parameter coverage and (or) sampling frequency at certain existing stations in the USGS nctwork. Initiating ncw stations and cxpanding existing stations operated by state pollution control agencies and the WQO. In many situations, it is cxpcctcd that stations will bo jointly o p crated by state and (or) local agencies and thc WQO. * Initiating analytical quality control procedurcs to assure that requisitc
Compilation. A STORET printout lists wafer quality datu gutliered over a 12year period at a monitoring station on the Snake River in Idaho
accuracy and precision are achieved. is currently working with USGS in the development of a mutually consistent program in this area. Expanding data processing capability as necessary to permit timely evaluation of large volumes of data. To achieve the stated objectives of the coordinated surveillance network, it is essential that the data collected be evaluated in a n expeditious manner and made readily available to all users. Only in this way can appropriate follow-up actions be taken. Timely data processing and diagnosis will be achieved through the use of WQO’Sexisting computerized data storage and retrieval system ( STORET) and additional computer programs which must be developed. A preliminary evaluation of the local, state, and federal long-term water quality monitoring effort required to provide adequate coverage of the nation’s water resources indicates a need for at least 10,000 monitoring points on both interstate and intrastate waters. This may seem like a large number of stations until the length of streams, lakes, impoundments, and shoreline to be monitored is fully considered. These proposed stations, if equally spaced, would be located at 350-mile intervals. In fact, stations will be located closer together in highly developed areas and more distant in less developed areas. Obviously, there will be no overabundance of stations at this level of activity. The majority of these stations would be well within state boundaries, and hence would most directly serve the needs of local and state water pollution control agencies. Stations providing information of key federal concern would include those along state and international boundaries, principal estuaries, mouths of major tributaries, large metropolitan complexes, and major water resource projects. There are an estimated 900 stream and 1500 open-water locations in this category. Operational responsibility for a given new monitoring statior7 would fall to the agency receiving greatest benefit from its operation. That is, state agencies would be expected to assume operating responsibility for most new stations within state boundaries and many new stations along state boundaries. WQO, utilizing the USGS network to achieve efficiency, would assume responsibility for those stations at the estimated 2400 locaWQO
118 Environmental Science & Technolog)
Robot monitor. Information from this station on the Potomac is automatically recorded by a remote
WQO
computer
tions of key federal concern. Thus, the federal role in this area will be primarily one of providing a skeleton network of stations that serve to tie the individual state monitoring systems together into one vast nationwide pollution surveillance network. Plans call for full implementation of the network by fiscal year 1975. Water quality measurements
The number of stations in the network does not, alone, determine the adequacy of the network. The number and types of water quality indices measured at each station and frequency of their measurement are very important considerations. Since the choices of parameter coverage and monitoring frequencies have significant bearing on network operating cost, they should be selected with care and periodically adjusted as warranted. The water quality indices selected for evaluation at a given station will be determined largely by the water quality criteria listed in the standards applicable to that station (see table on page 116). Certain indices, in addition to those listed in the standards, may be measured in situations where they are
considered to be of importance in establishing baseline water quality and determining trends that are required to evaluate compliance with the nondegradation clause in the water quality standards. There are still other indices that must be measured on occasion which are implicit in the standards, although not specifically listed. T o thoroughly evaluate compliance with the requirement in all standards that waters be free of toxic substances, for example, would require the routine conduct of numerous tests o n all samples for specific compounds known to be toxic to man, animals, and aquatic life. Obviously, the cost of doing this on even a small number of samples would be prohibitive. The plan is to evaluate all actual and potential sources of pollution in the vicinity of each monitoring station to determine which, if any, toxic substances are likely to be present, and to test for those only, The optimum sampling frequency required to characterize water quality at a given station depends on the variability in the indices of interest. In a statistical sense, there is no answer to the question of how many samples are needed in a given time period, without foreknowledge of the variability of the constituents to be measured. Thus, a rather arbitrary frequency must be set initially for each station and adjusted at a later date, after sufficient data have been c01lected to make an evaluation. To evaluate compliance with water quality standards, extreme, not average, values are of primary concern. Thus, to be absolutely certain that a violation has not occurred would require continuous sampling at each station and evaluation of all indices on each sample. Again, the cost of this at even a few stations would be prohibitive. A practical approach-and one that will be followed-is to assign arbitrary sampling frequencies at each site, based on: The particular index of quality requiring the most frequent evaluation. The importance of the water uses being protected at the location and the impact of a violation on those uses. The potential for brief violations to occur. Thus, samples will be collected most frequently at a station located in waters serving, for example, as a source of potable water supply for a
large metropolitan area and downInitially, perhaps as many as 15% stream from a waste source with a of the stations will warrant the use of potential for producing temporary vioautomated monitoring devices. As the lations. On the other hand, a station population and economy continue to located in a zone subject only to minor expand and the fixed supply of water pollution and designated for mainteis increasingly reused, greater and nance of rough fish and boating will greater reliance will he placed on autobe sampled less frequently. mated water quality sensing systems t o Tests for those indices most subject manage water quality adequately. to variation at a given station will be To ensure the reliability of data colperformed on every sample from that lected by the coordinated surveillance station. Tests for those indices less network, an analytical quality control subject to variation and (or) more program will become an integral part expensive to evaluate wiil he perof the overall system. All cooperating formed on alternate samples or at agencies will he expected to participate some other reduced frequency. Thus, in such a program. 'I 'he success of the the frequency of monitoring for a pollution control eflb r t will rest, to given water quality index may vary a great extent, upon the comparability from continuous to four times per and reliability of the information proyear, depending on the location. The vided by the various Ijarticipating agenfrequency of monitoring at a given stacies. tion will vary among the parameters Collection of adequate quantities of being evaluated. accurate data is only part of the task The proposed monitoring frequenat hand. T o achieve the stated obcies as well as station coverage are jectives, the mass of raw data rerecognized to he near minimal. The ceived must he evaluated in a timely approach being taken is to concentrate fashion and results made immediately on placement and initiation of moniavailable in a usable form to partictoring stations in the early stages of ipating agencies for appropriate foldevelopment of the surveillance netlow-up action. WQO'S computerized work. Once the nucleus of stations is data storage and retrieval system, operational, greater effort will he diSTORET, is being used to meet these rected toward improvement of water data handling requirements. quality index coverage and optimizaThe STORET system, oper.ationa1 tion of mcinitoring frequencie s. T o assince 1964, utilizes many computer sist in this endeavor, WQO ha!i already terminals throughout the country, all initiated, bsy contract, the devr:lopment linked to a central computer. Data """--"~ 1.aLJyL~ ..rrAva.ih to the of a syster.., L"""I-.":" from four federal and ahout 25 state design of monitoring systems. This agencies are stored routinely through approach will include procedures f o r the remote terminals. T o date, data determining the optimum sampling from 30,000 stations have been stored freauencv at .a locatinn lna will ~~~~, ~ .. &en ..... in the central computer. The STORET he applicable to streams, impoundsystem has the capability to provide ments, and estuaries receivine an" ----,a variety of statistical summaries on type of warite, whether from cattle the stored data. When fully implefeed lots, mimicipalities, industries, or mented, the STORET system will also cropland sur face runoff. allow comparisons, by computer, of Once the sampling frequency is eswater quality standards and the data ^i AL. tahlished for a g~vcrr S L ~ L I V I ~ , ,ne ecoso that apparent violations can he nomics of manual vs. automated samquickly identified for appropriate acple collection and (or) sensing techtion. The system will have the capaniques can be evaluated. In making bility t o provide an even wider range such1 an evaluation, we must consider of statistical analyses on the stored that data. A variety of output formats for Automated ~ P V ~ P P A Q n nnt ?am. the raw data and statistical summaries, pletely replace field personnel since utilizing printers, magnetic tape, X-Y they require routine maintenance. plotters, and cathode ray tubes, will be Higher salaried personnel are genoffered. erally required for maintenance of R&D needs electronic sensors than for manual sample collection. In the future, water resources must Electronic sensors produce a he managed more adequately. The ahilwealth of data, which may require ity to acquire timely information to more elaborate and expensive data make the necessary operating decisions handling procedures. on a day-to-day hasis will require more ~
1~
~
~
~~~~~~~
.~
,
?
y.V6.UA2.~
.L.A!.-
-
~~~
-" ..-. --..
.
-
~
~
-
sophisticated water quality sensing techniques and instruments than those now in use. Areas in which further research and development are needed to provide the necessary water quality management tools include: Adaptation of scientific management techniques for use in optimizing surveillance system designs. * Development of automated instrumentation (portable and fixed) that is capable, with minimal maintenance, of accurate1y measuring a wide variety of wiiter quality indices over long periods,, and telemetering the data to a central 1ocation. * Development ot aerial noncontact sensing techniques for broad-scale evaluation of water quality conditions over vast geographical areas. . - ~ ueveiopmenr 01 new, more u1clusive water quality indices that can better lend themselves to automated sensing techniques. Without these nhew techniques andI systems for acquiri ng water data, true >nn-mnnt nrnnrlmr water quality mariu61A..u.A. will not become a reality. Effort is presently underway in both WQO and the private sector to develop the much needed tools for water quality management. But this effort must he intensified if we. as a nation. wish to meet the chak n g e s of tomorrow,
William T . Sayers is Plans &valuation Officer,Planning Branch, Water Quality Ofice (formerly PWQA!, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Mr. Sayers, a C.E. (1958) and M.S. (1959) graduate of the University of Cincinnati, entered government service with the US. Public Health Service in 1959. He worked in Cincinnati and Dallas with the USFHS and was working in Minneapolis when his division became the FWPCA. When this article was written, Mr. Sayers was Chief, Water Quality Surveillance Systems Section, FWQA. The article is bared on a presentation given to the ACS Division of Water, Air and Waste Chemistry at the Chicago National Meeting, September 1970. Volume 5, Numher 2, Fehruary 1971 119
