&EPA
inside
' Environmental Information vt;:
Management for the Future: An :
Outside View/3 .
Introducing Community Right-to^-,
Know/3 ,„.
EPA's "One-Stop" State Partners/6
Pathfindiog Innovations in
Washington State/6 '"";
Sector-Based Approaches to Data
Preform: Common Sense Iniflative
Projects/8 '-"'
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of
Reinvention
(1801)
. _L 3fi-v-~'"3
May 1998
WM.epa.gov/rehweM
.
A REPORT ON/REGULATORY REINVENTION
Reinventing Environmental Information:
Making Data Resources Work for
Better Environmental Results
Introducing REI
Earlier this year, Administrator Carol
Browner publicly announced an
EPA action plan for a broad initia-
tive called Reinventing Environmental
Information (REI), launched by the .:
Agency in response to information and
database management needs identified by
EPA, its regulatory partners, and stake-
holders. The REI Action Plan is a "living
document" that commits EPA to meeting
a series of highly specific 3- to 5-year
goals. The Agency developed the plan
with assistance from stakeholder groups
r- including the Council of the Common
.Sense Initiative (CSI), EPA's program for
exploring industry sector-based ap-
proaches to environmental protectiori, i,
But what does it mean tpj'reinvent".
environmental information—which ^
sounds like a formidible^ndertaking-—
with a time hqrji£6'ij_,pf 5 years? _^._.
What REIJias targeted for reform is
not the universj: of environmental infor-
matioh^as such, but certain "disconnects"
betv/eeff existing data systems and the
inforrrjatjon needs .of our evolving envi-
ronnaentaLprotection system. It is useful
to think of these disconnects as incom-
plete transitions between then and now,
whjre then harks back to the infancy of
£-'• • "- ;; i • •
r~ehvironroental protection system in
J%w was a time of fledgling ~
jmation teqhnplogy and a single-
policy focus tied to the sequence of
fsingle-media statutes enacted in those
early years. Now,$y contrast, is a time of
rapidly advancing information technology
capabilities and increasing emphasis on
cross-media environmental issues, a time
when cpmmunity-bas.ed envirpnmenjal
protection (CBEP),_and sector-based
approaches to environmental problems
TrequirS increasingly sophisticated aggrega-
tions of data.
As scientists:and policymakers inside...
and outside EPA have publicly stated,
;I sound scientific information has become
increasingly critical for developing work-
able solutions to,today^s highly complex
environmental problems: Tomorrow's
- environmental issues will be no less com-
plex—^probably more so. To_succeed in
meeting these challenges, EPA believes the
;V United States needs what a prominent
^ stakeholder group called, in a recent
^ repo,rt, "aff jnfdrmation-rich environmen-
tal protectibn syyfem" (see page 3). In
— other words, we'need ajystem that takes
full advantage of information manage-
ment technology, readily njeets th,e needs
of decision-makers for integrated, cross-
; media configurations of data, arid alsp
meets outside stakeholders' needs forje_asi-
ly accessible, understandable enyirdnmen-
7 tal information. REI is about fundamen-
tal, strategic database management 7_
: reforms that will provide the foundation^
for meeting a wide range of environment
- tal information needs in th£21st century.
x It is a collaborative initiative predicated gn
effective working partnerships between ~™
_ EPA and its counterpart state
-f agencies.
REINVENTION
-------
iOIMItil
Environmental Reporting—
Required by Law
vinSJ H^ "f-^
.;.. ............ _ .......... ...
: revise suck,
•lie sJjaTlprepare ana submit to the Administrator. . . biennially . . . a
[RiS jlly y W ; 7 'f, J~ - ~,,y;. ,^^y ,..,,.^; ^. *.„,; -*
12 !S2!£S Sfltt £2£i2,2£n~^'-§£££SPi:ton °J ™e wa-ter quality of all navigable waters
"~ "
„, !,!•!,:, F> -II. « •;».«. , 1, ' I..Llt!llW^
new motor vehicles . . . shall establish and maintain records,
(IS ;J"»' tffiB" 8 ?;™f ' «/": ^ ?' - —•-•-'- '-'::j= --•:- "-"---": ~'Y'r' --~-:f "ff''••--''"•'''''P'"'' -'•'•"••'"•*
y*y®!2fl:-£S£, wsffc. M££ testing is not otherwise reasonably available. . . make j
iiu,,ii'i..«vjiihti _—'"ifjn^rmafioji t^jQmjmstrato£jnay_ reasonff.bly^require. . . .
^miK
;»[i;!leiiil!i.
A Bounty of Data
Collected...
EPA and its state partners presently
collect a wealth of environmental
data under various statutory and
regulatory authorities. Examples include
reports on air emissions under the Clean
Air Act, on wastewater discharges into
waterways under the Clean Water Act,
and on pollutant levels in drinking water
supplies under the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act requires that records be
kept on the transport and storage of haz-
ardous waste, and administration of the
Superfund law entails gathering many
kinds of data including details concern-
ing site assessments and remediation
actions. Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the
Toxic Substances Control Act, manufac-
turers must provide extensive data on
the toxicity and uses of pesticides and
other chemicals. These and other data
are routinely collected to help ensure
that environmental laws are properly
observed. The result is a rich assortment
of diverse and vasdy detailed data, gar-
nered under different environmental
programs, stored in different databases,
and tailored to different uses.
But an Outmoded
Data System...
The existing environmental data
management system, which con-
tinues to rely heavily on paper-
based reporting, is outmoded in a num-
ber of ways. As a legacy of preceding
decades, the system is made up of many
separately designed databases diat gener-
ally are not technically compatible with
each other. As such, the overall system is
out of step with recent advances in
information technology such as
Geographic Information Systems that
allow integration of data from multiple
systems.
The Internet, another significant
advance in information technology, has
made powerful new tools available to
EPA, its partners at state and local levels,
and anyone with access to a computer.
In just a few years, the Internet has
become a widely used device for provid-
ing stakeholders with access to environ-
mental data and information, and the
public_has come to expect the efficiency
of advanced computer technology.
Particularly since the advent of the Toxic
Release Inventory, or TRI (see inset box
on opposite page), the public has
become increasingly knowledgeable
about environmental information as a
resource that can help them safeguard
their neighborhoods and communities.
Conversely, the success of community-
based, sector-based, and other partner-
ship-based approaches to environmental
protection depends in no small measure
on timely access to multi-media, place-
based, and sector-based configurations
of environmental data.
Needed: Data
Standards and a
Common Network
For Sharing
Information...
EPA recognizes that transforming
environmental data into easily
accessible and meaningful forms
is one of the most importanrsteps it can
take to strengthen environmental deci-
sion-making, assess the effectiveness of
its own environmental protection strate-
gies, and get the best possible environ-
mental results for the least possible cost.
This recognition lies behind the steps
EPA is taking to reinvent the way it col-
lects, manages, and shares environmental
data. Through REI, EPA committed to
the following four reforms, seen as
building blocks for continued improve-
ments in information management:
• Standardize basic data elements (i.e.,
adopt common "data standards") to
allow the aggregation of data from dif-
ferent databases around places, chemi-
cals, sectors, and environmental condi-
tions—starting with six high-priority
data standards (see box on page 5).
• Provide universal access to electronic
reporting of~environmental data as a
means of improving data management
and access.
-------
--i ^/
Environmental Information Management for the Future—
An Outside View
In a January 1998 report entitled
The Environmental Protection
System in Transition: Toward a. More
Desirable Future, the broad-based, bi-
partisan group of environmental, busi-
ness, and government leaders known as
Enterprise for the Environment (E4E)
put forward their vision for a future
system summarized as "performance-
based, information-rich, flexible,
accountable, and open and trans-
parent to stakeholders." Based on
consensus reached during 2 years
of "deliberations led by former
EPA Administrator "William D. i
Ruckelshaus, E4E participants ;
recommended a "stepping stone" :
approach toward an improved
environmental regulatory sys-
tem—an incremental, step-by- .
step process involving experimen-
tation, adaptation, and evolution-
ary change, rather than sudden,
drastic alterations to the system
that exists today. The principles '
embodied in the E4E report
closely relate to EPA's reinvention ;
approach of testing and evaluating
new ideas before adopting :
changes systematically. ;
One of E4E's recommenda- ;
tions, consistent with REI, is for
the federal government to under-
take a well-funded, multi agency,
multi year initiative to improve
the quality, collection, manage-
ment, and accessibility of environ-
mental information. E4E points
out that such an initiative should
reflect input from all appropriate ;
stakeholders and should achieve
goals including improved efficien-
cy and integration of information :
collection systems.
E4E also makes recommendations
concerning the design of new, informa-
tion-based public policy tools. Noting
that EPA's Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) has demonstrated how informa-
tion disclosure can directly affect cor-
porate efforts to reduce emissions, the
E4E report states, "The challenge for
the future is to take the lessons learned
from TRI and similar efforts to further
develop ways in which information
disclosure can drive the behavior of
regulated entities in a cost-effective and
flexible manner. Information disclosure
is viewed as an essential element of the
improved environmental protection
system because it provides incentives
for continuous improvement in envi-
ronmental performance that are not
provided by more traditional regulato-
ry approaches."
Introducing Community Right-to-Know—
Environmental Data Goes Public
After 1986 Law
When Congress passed the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act of 1986, the stage was set
for the transformation of environmental data into
a powerful tool for public participation in com-
munity planning and environmental decision-
making. The law requires industries to develop
contingency plans for chemical emergencies and
to notify their states and communities concerning
the presence, routine emissions, and any acciden-
tal releases of hazardous chemicals. As mandated
by this law, EPA created the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) to handle an annual influx of
industry reports and make them publicly available.
When the TRI database became fully operational in 1989, it added new dimensions to
environmental reporting. TRI data covers chemical releases to air, water, and land, so it is
multimedia in configuration. What's more, TRI changed the rules of the game by making
environmental data reports available simultaneously to EPA and to the public. In addition
to paper copy and microfiche options, citizens with access to a computer could connect
electronically to the TRI database and gain access as new information was submitted.
In the decade since passage of the first federal community right-to-know statute, citi-
zens and other stakeholders have taken advantage of TRI and other data sources and
become knowledgeable "secondary" users of environmental information. In the process,
they have become more sophisticated concerning applications, and potential applications,
of environmental databases in local and regional planning and decision-making.
Consequently, the "secondary" uses of environmental information by stakeholders have
become just as important as the originally intended uses.
?
1st-
fe.
is:
-------
• Incorporate these improvements into
EPA's own national environmental
databases, enabling data aggregation
from different media in useful ways—
starting with 13 national systems (see
table on page 5).
* Work in partnership with states,
through the Agency's "One-Stop"
program (see page 6), to integrate EPA
and state data systems around com-
mon data standards.
These four reform areas reflect and
build upon knowledge gained and
progress made recently in information
management inside and outside EPA. In
particular, they reflect lessons learned
through pilot projects in partnerships
with states as well as other reinvention
efforts such as CSI. (See boxes on
"Sector-Based Approaches to Data
Reform," and on "Pathfinding
Innovations in Washington State.")
Projected Timeframe
for Delivery
Through REI, EPA committed, in
partnership with the states, to
implement core data standards
and make electronic reporting available
in the Agency's major national systems
within 5 years, starting with critical
compliance systems (see table on page
5). To meet this deadline, it will be ne-
cessary for EPA to promulgate the ne-
cessary data standards, policies, and
protocols within 3 years. As each new
standard for data elements and electron-
ic reporting becomes ready for imple-
mentation, it will be incorporated into
national database systems within 2 years.
To keep progress on track, EPA set a
series of milestones for data standards
and for electronic reporting. Key mile-
stones for data standards include:
• Promulgate interim standards for six
priority data standards.
• Develop business rules and processes
for implementing the standards and
promulgating final standards.
• Establish a central Agency program to
support implementation of die stan-
dards by EPA and the states.
• Implement data standards and busi-
ness practices in national systems and
accept new data in die standard for-
mat from all participating states.
The electronic reporting milestones
include the following:
• Complete current electronic reporting
pilots.
• Complete electronic data interchange
standards development.
• Draft an Electronic Data Interchange
and Electronic Commerce policy for
delegated states.
• Publish a final policy for electronic
environmental reporting.
• Make at least one electronic
reporting method available in all
national systems.
• Require all national systems to use the
Agency electronic reporting standard.
Benefits of REI
\-y setting the Agency and its part-
s ners on a course of achievable
'goals and milestones, REI lays
down building blocks that will be the
foundation for a seamless environmental
information system in the future. In the
near term—within 5 years—REI will
provide a number of benefits, including:
• Easier comparisons of data across dif-
ferent EPA databases, because com-
mon data-standards will reduce confu-
sion stemming from multiple methods
of representing the same information
in different data systems.
• Less regulatory burden, because uni-
versal, voluntary access to electronic
reporting will cut paper work and
eliminate duplicative compliance
reports to satisfy separate but related
environmental regulations.
• Better data quality, because
electronic reporting will reduce the
errors that can occur when
data is entered repetitiously
into separate data systems,
with fewer time delays and
costs from such errors as well.
• Enhanced value of informa-
tion for customers, because
common data standards and
electronic reporting will
increase the capability to
aggregate data across databases
in useful ways.
• Stronger, more effective regulatory
partnerships with states and localities,
based on data sharing.
• Improved ability to track and report
on environmental performance as
required by the 1997 Government
Performance and Results Act.
Complementary
Actions
REI lays out the basic
building blocks for building
an improved environmental
information network, it does not address
each and every information reform need.
Additional reforms will continue at die
federal and State level. More than 50
specific projects involving joint collabo-
ration are currently underway (see pie
chart below). These projects involve:
• Streamlining to consolidate data
requirements.
• Data transmission to support elec-
tronic reporting.
• Reengineering to modernize systems.
• Developing information requirements
to better address priority issues (espe-
cially to reinforce pollution prevention
objectives).
• Improving public access to provide
citizens with better environmental
information.
• Reducing burden to eliminate unnec-
essary requirements that divert atten-
tion away from higher priorities.
• Monitoring to support more strategic
and efficient data collection.
Recognizing the need to ensure better
coordination and cooperation, in
Current State/EPA Information Reform Projects*
Monitoring
2%
Burden
Reduction
*• 8% Streamlining
42%
Reengineering
24%
*Some projects target more than one reform objective.
-------
What's Wrong Today?
Lots of information is collected, but not in a form that is
readily accessible or understandable
Historical Data:
Lag between time data is collected and reported to regulatory
agencies delays analysis and reporting. Information is always
available "after the fact."
Paper-based transmission:
Repetitious entries at each level (i.e., facilities, regulatory agen-
cies) are time and resource intensive and more prone to error.
Analytical limitations:
Media-specific databases and lack of common data standards
make it difficult to conduct comprehensive (i.e., multi-media)
environmental assessments.
What's the Vision For the Future?
A seamless, integrated system for all users
Local/State Government
m
Real-time data:
All parties have ability to check
and act upon latest environmen-
tal performance data.
Electronic transmission:
Single entry improves data quality
and frees up resources for more
productive use.
Integrated:
Multi-media analytical capabilities
allow users to assess overall envi-
ronmental impacts and support
local planning, regulatory deci-
sion making, and community
right-to-know objectives.
-------
about EPA's information reform activities or
about reinvention activities in general, contact
EPA's Office of Reinvention at 202 260-1849.
Or look for more information on the Internet
at . You'll find spe-
cial reports, remarks from senior Administration
and Agency officials, detailed fact sheets, and
much more.
-------
January 1998, EPA and States (working
through their national organization, the
Environmental Council of the States)
established a joint Information
Management Work Group to guide
reform efforts in the future. The group
developed a joint vision on goals for
improving the collection, management,
and use of environmental data, and a set
of operating principles that will guide
how and where reform efforts are
focused — both of which are consistent
with the REI vision.
Continuing
Challenges
In addition to the technical database
management problems being solved
through REI and the collaborative
State projects described above, EPA and
external stakeholders have identified se-
veral broader information management
challenges that require further work and
"Universal, voluntary access to electronic reporting
will cut paper work and eliminate duplicative
compliance reports to satisfy separate but related
environmental regulations."
close collaboration between EPA and
states. These ongoing challenges include:
• Identifying and filling data gaps in the
Agency's information holdings, partic-
ularly in light of new directions in
environmental protection, such as
CBEP—which requires holistic, cross-
media assessments of ecosystems and
other communities—and the pragmat-
ic need to measure success toward
achieving environmental goals.
• Reducing the reporting burden on reg-
ulated entities by identifying redun-
dant or unnecessary reporting require-
ments, while still ensuring that data
needs for protecting public health and
the environment are filled.
• Establishing a clear process for ongo-
ing stakeholder involvement in critical
information management issues.
• Working with Congress and stake-
holders to identify and remedy statu-
tory and regulatory barriers to EPA's
ongoing efforts to streamline environ-
mental reporting requirements and
standardize data across all environ-
mental databases.
By continuing to focus on these chal-
lenges while working closely with states
and by following through on REI's
strategic reforms, EPA can help bring
about a much more efficient, powerful
system for managing environmental data
in the information age.
REI Priorities
Reengineering National Environmental
Databases
Clear Water Act Water Permit Compliance System ....PCS
Water Quality Information System .STORE!
Safe Drinking Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Information System , .... .SDWIS
|r-Clear Air Act (CA A)
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
—Air Quality Subsystem
-AIRS Facility Subsystem ......
CAA 112(r)Risk Management
Plan Information System — ....
.AIRS/AQS
.AIRS/AES
.RMP*lnfo
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA Information System .
Biennial Reporting System
.RCRIS
.. .BBS
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act
National Compliance Database ."........ .NCDB
Comprehensive Environmental
_Response,Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA)
CERCLA Information System CERCLIS
Emergency Response and
Community Right-to-Know Act
Toxic Release Inventory System , TRIS
Multi-Media
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance Docket
Envirofacts Data Warehouse ..
.DOCKET
..,'.. .EF
^Establishing'
lEnvirpn mental Data
|Standards
Okar 2000 Date: Consistent numeric rep-
e%presentation of calendar date to facilitate
^-^interchange of date data among infor-
p mation systems.
^facility Identification: Consistent termi-
!l: nplpgy and format for identifying regu-
ii± lated entities such as factories and
fa* power plants in all databases.
f^tandard Industrial Classification Code
§,!_JS'pd North American Industrial
""""""••• "• " i System:Numericalcod-
|fe ing systems established by the Office of
Iks Management and Budget and main-
llgtained by the Department of Commerce
Is*- io classify businesses or industries by
K?--lactlvity type.
'tittide/Longitude: Consistent format
' for identifying the location of regulated
^facilities.
Biological Taxonomy: Consistent termi-
nology and format for identifying living
pirjhings.... ;..,'. . '. _.__
tjjjjfjemical Identification: Consistentter-
Kijjiinoiogy and format for identifying
jjjffch'e.micals. . '' "" " ."
-------
1997 Grantees
1998 Grantees
EPA's "One-Stop" State Partners
To help support state data reform
projects, EPA provides funding in
the form of demonstration grants
through its One-Stop program. This
program, named for the vision of a fully
integrated, seamless system that allows
reporting into a single, universally acces-
sible database, is EPA's central program
for collaboration on information reform
projects with the States. To date, EPA
has awarded One-Stop demonstration
grants to 21 states. In 1996, grants were
given to 5 states: Massachusetts,
Missouri, New Jersey, Utah, and
Washington (see below). In 1997, grants
were awarded to another 8 states—
Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi, New
Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas,
and West Virginia. In 1998, grants were
awarded to an additional 8 states:
Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Maryland,
Oklahoma, New Hampshire, New York,
and Wisconsin.
As EPA Administrator Carol Browner
has stated, "These grants demonstrate
EPA's continued commitment to work
with the states to develop common-
sense, cost-effective national environ-
mental policy. In addition to cutting
reporting costs for industry and
government, One-Stop reporting will
facilitate the community right-to-know
process by providing all citizens easy
access to national, state, and local
environmental information from their
home computers."
Pathfinding Innovations in Washington State
The state of Washington, an EPA
One-Stop grant recipient, believes
that "information management
efforts should be driven by the needs of
users and that such efforts should both
produce beneficial results in the short
term and contribute to an overarching
vision." To illustrate Washington's vision,
the figure on page 7 shows how a One-
Stop integrated system would help an
environmental analyst working on a com-
prehensive management strategy for a
particular watershed. Today, answering
the series of questions posed (or any
series of environmental questions) is often
difficult and time-consuming. Based on a
careful analysis of user needs, however,
the state is developing new capabilities
that allow ready access to cross-program
information. In other words, these new
capabilities will allow just the sort of inte-
grated, multimedia application illustrated
to be performed.
Washington is also working to reform
environmental reporting from regulated
facilities. One of its pilot projects devel-
oped software for electronic submission
M./Vr'
-------
ofaata on Hazardous waste generators to
replace a traditional paper-based system.
Based on an existing software system
developed by the U.S. Navy Bremeton
Shipyard, Washington state developed a
system that tracks, audits, formats, and
electronically submits to the state all of
the hazardous waste data required from,
facilities. Test runs by both large and
small hazardous waste generators demon-
strated significant improvements in data
quality. Better data quality translates into
less state investment in "data cleaning"
and faster reporting to EPA. Feedback
from software users indicates they are
pleased by "getting it right" the first time
and by finding the submission process
made easier. .
This application, known as the
"Turbo-Waste" system, is now available
over the Internet—at . Ultimately, this software
could be tailored to allow similar elec-
tronic submission capabilities for other
regulated parties.
www.epa.gov/reinvent/onestop
watershed Ambient
conditions
Substance Y
15% above standards
20% into treatment works
40% into stack
40% into landfill
5 facilities release/use
XYZ Corporation
Air Land Water
Permits: — — x
Inspections: x x -
Violations: x
Ecology* Activities for Y
Publications distributed...
Outreach training events...
Local grants allocated...
XYZ Corp. Enforcements
Date Type Regulation Fine
XYZ Corp. Inspections
Date Type Inspector Route
-------
glectpr-BasedApproaches to Data Reform-
j,ii]J™!!i|;!!1F' \ .p^ ' I tf, sSaf
"Ik 'S^ ^ .* •Vt^L- r-, • A.
Qortimon Sense Ingptive Projects
/ A. jjr
nder the Common S6nseaI (click on "What's New?"), clarifies which
reports and records a facility must file and maintain. It also
helps interested stakeholders learn what information is available
on a company's environmental performance. The next steps are
to design, pilot test, and make available a single reporting form
to replace the 13 separate environmental reports currently
being filed.
Iron and Steel Sector: Using a small iron and steel "mini-
mill" as a pilot plant, this CSI sector is working with the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to design and
test a format for electronically reporting multi-media data
directly into the DEQ. database. The streamlined reporting
process is expected to reduce transaction costs for regulators
and for facilities, to enhance cross-media examination of pollu-
tion prevention opportunities, and to advance the Utah DEQ's
efforts to improve environmental data management and make
environmental information more accessible to the public.
Oil and Gas Sector: With the help of the Marathon Oil
refinery in Texas City, Texas, the petroleum refining sector was
able to take an in-depth look at all applicable air reporting
requirements and, with feedback from the surrounding com-
munity, to assess whether facilities' reports were understandable
to citizens. The project identified and recommended modifica-
tions for duplicative or obsolete reporting requirements and for
addressing community needs. The project provided a clear pic-
ture of the complexity of reporting requirements and the
redundancy in information being gathered, such as name and
address. With this data and the results of community meetings
in hand, project participants will develop a new air emissions
reporting system—first at a single petroleum facility, with the
ultimate goal of expanding the system to include other facilities
and other media.
008$
sseinsng
09KIZ Od '
(1.08 1-)
AouaBv uojpaioJd |eiueiuuo.HAU3
------- |