Public Report for Options to Hake the
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Data Base
Accessible to the Public
CRC Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
4 Mar 88
PBS8-192398
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
PB88-192398
Public Report for Options to Make the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) Data Base Accessible to the Public,
4 Mar 88
PERFORMER: CRC Systems ,. Inc ., Fairfax, VA .
SPONSOR: Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Office of Toxic Substances.
Sponsored by Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. Office of Toxic Substances.
The purpose of the paper is to present appropriate options
for implementation of a publicly accessible Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) data base, to analyze and evaluate the costs
and benefits of those options, and to recommend one or more
of the best alternatives for making the TRI data base
available to the public. The analysis addresses only the
data base options. It does not address 'other means' of
public access to TRI data, e.g., printed versions of the
data or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, other
than to note the potential effect of 'other means' on usage
of the data base.
KEYWORDS: *Toxic substances, *TRI database, *Public access.
Available from the National Technical Information Service,
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
PRICE CODE: PC A04/MF AO1
-------
PB88-192398
PUBLIC REPORT FOR
OPTIONS TO MAKE THE TOXIC
RELEASE INVENTORY (TRI) DATA
BASE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC
Prepared for:
Office of Toxic Substances
Environmental Protection Agency
401M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared by:
CRC Systems, Inc.
11242 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 359-9400
March 4,1988
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Description Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1 INTRODUCTION M
1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE OF PAPER 1 -2
1.3 USER COMMUNITY 1-2
1.4 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1-3
1.5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1-3
2 APPROACH 2-1
2.1 INFORMATION GATHERING 2-1
2.1.1 Requirements Analysis 2-1
2.1.2 FIRMR 2-1
2.1.3 ETD Demand Analysis 2-2
2.1.4 Commerce Business Daily 2-4
2.1.5 Analysis of Additional Information 2-5
2.2 ASSUMPTIONS 2-5
2.3 POTENTIAL SYSTEM IMPACTS 2-7
2.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA 2-8
2.4.1 Minimum Requirements 2-8
2.4.2 Optional Characteristics 2-9
3 DATA BASE OPTIONS 3-1
3.1 BACKGROUND 3-1
3.1.1 Overall System Description 3-1
3.1.2 System Costs ' 3-2
3.1.3 User Costs 3-3
3.2 EPA CLEARINGHOUSE 3-3
3.2.1 System Description 3-3
3.2.2 Costs 3-6
-------
3.3 COMMERCIAL VENDORS/INFORMATION
PROVIDERS 3-8
3.3.1 System Description 3-8
3.3.2 Costs 3-9
3.4 IAG WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCY PROVIDER 3-11
3.4.1 System Description 3-11
3.4.2 Costs 3-11
3.5 AGREEMENT WITH NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
INFORMATION PROVIDER 3-12
3.5.1 System Description 3-12
3.5.2 Costs 3-12
3.6 EVALUATION OF REQUIREMENTS 3-13
3.6.1 Tier A 3-16
3.6.2 Tier B 3-20
3.6.3 TierC 3-20
3.7 COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL RISKS 3-22
3.7.1 Timely Negotiation 3-22
3.7.2 Timely System Implementation 3-22
3.7.3 Long Term Availability 3-24
3.8 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM COSTS 3-24
SUMMARY 4-1
4.1 COMPARISON ANALYSIS 4-1
4.1.1 Comparison of System Costs 4-1
4.1.2 Comparison of User Costs 4-1
4.1.3 Comparison of Capability to Meet
Requirements 4-3
4.1.4 Comparison of Potential Risks 4-3
4.1.5 Summary of Comparisons 4-4
4.2 STRATEGIC APPROACHES 4-6
4.2.1 Unembcllished Approach 4-7
4.2.2 Enhanced System Approach 4-7
4.3 EPA PLANNED APPROACH 4-8
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY A-l
APPENDIX B GLOSSARY B-l
APPENDIX C OPTION FEATURES C-l
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Description Page
2-1 Application of FIRMR to Selection of Options 2-3
3-1 EPA Clearinghouse 3-5
3-2 Summary of Cost to Government 3-7
3-3 Ability to Meet Requirements 3-14
3-4 Average Annual User Access Cost 3-17
3-5 Comparison of Potential Risk 3-23
3-6 Comparison of System Costs 3-25
4-1 Comparison of Options 4-2
4-2 Cumulative Benefits for Tier Bat First Year Costs 4-5
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present appropriate options for
implementation of a publicly accessible Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data base, to
analyze and evaluate the costs and benefits of those options, and to recommend one or
more of the best alternatives for making the TRI data base available to the public. This
analysis addresses only the data base options. It does not address "other means" of public
access to TRI data, e.g., printed versions of the data or Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests, other than to note the potential effect of "other means" on usage of the
data base.
Analysis
The four options presented and analyzed in this paper are:
o An EPA clearinghouse, where the EPA would implement and
support a public access data base from an existing Federal Data
Processing Center.
o A commercial vendor, using the existing environment and support
structure of a commercial data base vendor specializing in chemical
information systems.
o An interagency agreement (IAG) with a government agency that has
the experience and ability to support the data processing and user
support aspects.
o An agreement with a non-profit organization information provider,
such as a university, which will provide processing and user support
through an existing structure.
The cost of each of the options has been determined for
hardware/software, maintenance, system development and ongoing application
maintenance, systems operations and maintenance staff, telecommunications, marketing,
user support, account management, and additional facility support costs, where
applicable. Net costs to the Government were calculated for the first year costs and an
average of five years of annual cost with maximum estimated system usage. In addition,
ES-1
-------
average annual costs to the users were computed to enable evaluation of each option to
provide the data base to the public at a reasonable cost.
The options were analyzed to determine how well they meet the
requirements for the public access data base. System requirements were considered in
three tiers, i.e.. Tiers A, B, and C, where Tier A requirements represent the minimum
requirements mandated by legislation and/or specified by the EPA, and Tier B and C
requirements represent optional enhanced characteristics which are desirable for the TRI
public data base to enhance data utility and analysis and display characteristics. The
requirements for each tier are provided in the following chart:
REQUIREMENTS
TIER A TIER B TIER C
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE
ACCESSIBLE
REASONABLE COST
AGGREGATION CAPABILITIES
ACCUMULATION
SEARCH AND RETRIEVAL
DOWNLOADING CAPABILITIES
ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM AVAILABILITY
L'SER SLT'POBT
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS SOFTWARE
COMPLEMENTARY FTLES
MENU DRIVEN SCREENS
MAPPING CAPABILITIES
CROSSLINKS TO EPA DATA BASES
Potential risks for the options in terms of timeliness and long term
availability are also discussed.
ES-2
-------
Findings
The EPA Clearinghouse does not appear to be a viable option because of
us high initial cost, the high level of risk f«r timely implementation and its minimal level
of benefit.
The Commercial vendor option has the potential for meeting all
requirements, at reasonable cost, and with a satisfactory or greater level of benefits
However, the desirability for a vendor to maintain the TRI on a long term basis is
dependent on the user community and the demand for access to the data which affects the
profitability of the system. System usage will be affected by the data quality, the volume
of data received, the usage of "other means" of TRI access, and other factors. In
addition, competitive procurement from commercial vendors cannot be accomplished
within as short a timeframe as an interagency agreement, increasing the risk that the
system might not be available when needed.
The IAG option has the potential for providing the best benefit for the user
requirements with the best complementary file access for health and environmental
effects data. The option represents moderate implementation cost to the EPA and
reasonable cost to the user.
The agreement with a non-profit organization information provider
represents adequate support of the TRI public access data base within a short
implementation timeframe with reasonable cost to the EPA and to the user. However, the
availability of crosslinked and complementary files is limited. The organization
presented in the document supports a very narrow market, which would need to be
expanded to meet the needs of the TRI. In addition, procurement of a contract vehicle
may not be accomplished within as short a timeframe as an interagency agreement,
increasing the risk that the system might not be available when needed.
The following bar chart illustrates the potential of each of the options to
meet maximum benefit, when consideration is given to first year costs and Tier B level of
ES-3
-------
< LMILATIVE BENEFITS FOR TIER B
\T FIRST YEAR COSTS
100
I
75
so ^
3
o ^P
EP*
CLEARINOHOLSE
HON PROFIT
INFORMATION
PROVIDER
m vCCFJTA.80.ITT -JFHISK
I ! COSFORW^NCE TO SY5TTM R£OUR£MF"JT5
implementation. Because system costs, favorable user fees, conformance with system
requirements, and least nsk for timely, long-term implementation are given equal
consideration on the chart, this chart can best be viewed as providing a relative
comparison of the various options.
EPA Planned Approach
The recommended strategic approach is to select an implementation
option with low risk, low to moderate initial system cost, and favorable benefits,
including favorable user costs and system capabilities, at the Tier A level. Tier A has
been selected because of funding constraints. The EPA planned approach has been to
select the IAG option which has been determined to be the option which most closely
provides the best balance of all evaluation criteria established for this analysis. The IAG
option has the potential of providing an "enhanced system" at the partial Tier B level for
the initial implementation, while being funded at the Tier A level. Overall, the IAG
provides the best balance of the evaluation criteria at the Tier A level while providing
ES-4
-------
many complementary and environmental effects files (partial Tier B). EPA believes
these files will provide enhanced utility of the data collected under the Community-
Right-to-Know legislation.
The EPA will periodically evaluate and reassess the need to continue
support or to enhance the system capabilities as the system usage and availability through
other sources are established.
Commercial vendors will also be encouraged to explore the market
potential for a TRI public data base within their own systems, using magnetic tapes of
TRI data available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
ES-5
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
U BACKGROUND
Title III, Section 313 of the Superfund Amendments Reauthonzation Act
(SARA) of 1986, requires that the Environment*. Protection Agency (EPA) collect data
ior trie annual releases of certain toxic chemicals to the environment, according to the
specific thresholds as defined in Section 313(0 of the law. The list of the chemicals to be
regulated is included in Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Print Number
99-169, as it may be revised by EPA. The initial list contains 309 specific chemicals and
20 additional categories of chemicals. The law further requires that the data collected
under this legislation be made accessible to the public by computer through
telecommunication access and by other means, on a cost reimbursable basis.
The Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-Kno*
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register. Volume 52, Number 107, June 4,
1987.0) The final rule was published February 16, 1988.
Section 322 of Title HI permits chemical identity to be claimed as a trade
secret, where substantiation for the trade secret claim is provided to the EPA. Where
claims for trade secret prevent making the identity of the released chemicals known,
information concerning the health and environmental effects of the chemicals must be
provided to the public. A proposed rule for handling of the Title m trade secret claims
was published in the Federal Register. Volume 52, Number 199, October 1987.(2) The
final rule is scheduled for publication June 1988.
The Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) has been assigned responsibility
for implementation of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The Information Management
Division (IMD) of OTS has worked closely with other OTS divisions, other offices
within EPA Headquarters, EPA regions, states, and the public to detr-mine the
requirements for implementation of the TRI data base.
1-1
-------
The first reporting cycle requires that releases to the environment during
the 1987 calendar year must be reported to EPA and the states between January 1 and
July 1 of 1988. It is expected that the data base for these data will be available for public
access in 1989.
/ 2 PURPOSE OF PAPER
The purpose of this paper is to present appropriate options for
implementation of a publicly accessible TRI data base, to analyze and evaluate the costs
and benefits of those options, and to recommend one or more of the best alternatives for
making the TRI data base available to the public. This analysis addresses only the data
base options. It dojs not address the "other means" of public access to TRI data, e.g.,
printed versions of the data or reports or Freedom of Information Act requests, other than
to note the potential effect of "other means" on usage of the data base.
13 USER COMMUNITY
The potential user community for the TRI public data base is expected to
be comprised primarily of the private sector, including users in the following areas:
manufacturing, information research, chemistry, pharmaceutics, law, medicine, public
libraries, academics, media, and non-profit areas. EPA Headquarters staff, other
government agencies, states, and EPA regions are expected to have access to the internal
EPA TRI data base, which will contain the identical data, as well as the information
claimed as trade secret available only on the internal system. Therefore, the Government
sector is not expected to be a substantial user of the publicly available data base.
Possible competition for usage of the TRI data base will result from the
"other means" of public access to be provided by the EPA. Other means under
consideration include hard copies of forms and data reports, computer disks and tapes,
and optical disks. Regardless of the packaging and distribution of toxic release inventory
data, a computer tape will be available to the public through the National Technical
Information Services (NTIS) for all entities which have capabilities for computer
processing. Access to the Section 313 data may also be available through Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests. Therefore, the estimated user group may be affected
by the needs of the user community and by the "other means" of distribution that EPA
implements.
1-2
-------
14 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Much research and analysis have been undertaken towards the definition
and evaluation of data base options. Previous studies and publications are referenced in
this report, where appropriate, without repetition of the details of those studies.
Conclusions will be restated where necessary. References, indicated with a number in
parentheses, are listed in the bibliography in Appendix A.
1 S GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A glossary of terms and acronyms used in this report is provided in
Appendix B.
1-3
-------
SECTION 2
APPROACH
The approach used to prepare this options paper included information
gathering, documentation of the assumptions associated with the implementation of the
data base, concerns for factors that have potential to affect the system development, and
definition of the system requirements and criteria to be used for evaluating the
alternatives.
2J INFORMATION GATHERING
2.1.1 REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
OTS has performed an analysis of user requirements for EPA
Headquarters, EPA Regions, other Federal Agencies, and the public to identify the types
of searches, reports, information subsets and aggregates which are expected to serve the
needs of a large portion of the potential user community.(3)
In January 1987, a draft options paper (4) was prepared which presented
four options for computer-based TRI access, including an EPA controlled clearinghouse,
commencal vendor support, an interagency agreement (e.g., with the National Library of
Medicine (NLM)), and a cooperative agreement (e.g., following the model of the
National Pesticide Information Retrieval System (NPIRS) set up by Purdue Univers:ty).
The options paper was the focus of a public meeting held April 20, 1987, generating
additional comments and concerns for public availability of the TRI data.(5)
2.1.2 FIRMR
The Federal Information Resources Management Regulation (FIRMR) (6)
is concerned with the basic policies and regulations for managing information resources
within the Federal Government. The FIRMR establishes policy for the analysis of
alternatives (41 CFR 201-30.009) and resource sharing (41 CFR 201-31.002) with regard
to resource acquisition and utilization.
2-1
-------
The FIRMR requires that an alternatives analysis consider the following
with respect to information management: the use of non-ADP resources, the use of
existing facilities and resources on a shared basis (e.g., Federal Data Processing Centers
(FDPC) and Interagency Agreements), the use of commercial ADP services, the redesign
of existing applications (software), and the augmentation and upgrading of existing
configurations and system components (hardware). Consideration must also be given to
requirements for facilities, personnel, and other applicable factors, including such things
as privacy or security implications. The alternatives presented in this document in
Section 3 are in keeping with these requirements, as briefly summarized in Exhibit 2-1.
In keeping with the FIRMR requirements, several existing government
systems were examined.^) These systems included the Justice Retrieval and Inquiry
System (JURIS), the Security and Exchange Commission Pilot Data base (EDGAR),
Systems of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Storage and Retrieval of
Water Quality Information System (STORET), the Program Integration Project Queries
Use in Interactive Command (PIPQUIC), the Utility Emission Inventory Data (UTTL),
the National Institute of Occupational Sa> :ry and Health (NIOSH) Systems, and the
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) System. The possibility of providing public access
to the TRI data base using a methodology similar to one of these has not proved to be
feasible.
2.1.3 ETD DEMAND ANALYSIS
The Economics and Technology Division (ETD) of OTS prepared a
preliminary demand analysis to determine the potential market size and user community
for the public TRI data base. Using a simple modeling approach, usage, in terms of
number of online accesses, was assumed to be a function of price using a constant
elasticity formulation, i.e., relative elasticities across user categories were estimated,
based on assumptions about user category price sensitivity. The analysis was based on
data on the overall online information market from the Information Industry Factbook
'87 (Digital Information Group), estimates of data base usage by customer type and
average session duration from an online data vendor of scientific information, customer
usage frequency estimates from contractor interview reports, and online data base prices
from price lists obtained from most of the major private online data base vendors of both
2-2
-------
REQUIREMENT
I.
OPTION
Non-ADP Implementation
3.
4.
K)
Shared Resources
Commercial ADP Services
Redesign Existing
Applications
Augmentation and Upgrading
of Existing Configurations
and System Components
RATIONALE
The TRI data base cannot be limited to non-ADP resources
because of legislative mandate for a computer data base and
because the size and complexity of the data require the use
of ADP resources. Data will also be distributed by other,
non-ADP means, as mandated in the legislation.
Option 1, EPA Clearinghouse (FDPC)
Option 3, Interagency Agreement
Option 4, Non-Profit Organization Information
Provider
Option 2, Commercial Vendors.
Redesign of 'he EPA internal TRI
application to accommodate public usage was rejected based
on the EPA obligation to preserve trade secret data, and the
EPA determination of how best to fulfill that obligation.
Option 1, the EPA Clearinghouse,
involves the augmentation and upgrading
of the National Computer Center (NCC), the FDPC used for
existing EPA ADP Systems.
Option 3, Interagency Agreement, may also require
augmentation and upgrading of existing systems.
Application of FIRMR to Selection of Options
Exhibit 2-1
-------
text and numerical data bases. Estimates of potential academic, non-
profit and media users were obtained from Statistical Abstracts. World Environmental
Directory and Environmental U.S.A.
The estimates of TRI demand were based on an estimated total potential
user population of about 250,000. The total was distributed among user categories based
on estimates of data base usage by customer type. Since only a fraction of the users of
any online data base service would be expected to use the TRI data base even once a
year, an estimate of usage of chemistry related files as a percentage of total data base
usage was used as a proxy for the potential usage of TRI data. This percentage was
0.8%. Using an average online session of 20 minutes and an average number of sessions
of three per month total usage was estimated to be 12 hours per user per year. Current
prices for online public data bases produced by Federal agencies range from $25 to $84
per hour of usage. The price of an hour usage of scientific/technological and medical
data bases offered through private vendors ranges from $36 to $153.
Using the above inputs, the number of potential TRI users was calculated
to be approximately 2,000. Given an assumed price of $100 per hour of usage, the
estimated number of annual data base accesses is about 88,000, assuming that no fee
waiver is provided Since the users most likely to meet the "public interest" requirement
for fee waivers are also likely to be pnce sensitive, it is estimated that total usage could
be increased substantially through provision of fee waivers. However, available data do
not allow this increase to be quantified reliably.
2 7 4 COMMERCE BUSINESS DAILY
The EPA published an announcement in the Commerce Business Dailv
(CBD) (9) in June 1987, seeking information on online interactive systems for the
Community Right-to-Know Data Base. Functional capabilities requested included
powerful and easy to use indexing, searching, and retrieving of numerical and textual
data on chemical substances; complementary files, with integrated search capability for
health and environmental effects, toxicology and chemical industry data; support for
statistical analysis: standard and ad hoc report generation with possible graphic output;
and support for monitonng trends over and between reporting years. In addition to data
base system functions, user support, training, marketing, documentation, user account
2-4
-------
management, and telecommunications were also specified as necessary. System
availability for a minimum of 16 hours per day, 7 days a week was also defined as a
requirement.
Responses to the CBD announcement were received from commercial
data base vendors and academic institutions (non-profit organizations) already engaged in
distributing information through publicly available data bases. Others interested in
developing the public-data base system also responded. The information provided by
responders was analyzed to determine the potential for the private sector vendors to meet
EPA's specifications for the TRI data base. The information was used for preparing
financial estimates for Option 2, i.e., the commercial vendors, and Option 4, i.e.,
agreement with non-profit organization information providers. The information, in
conjunction with the information obtained from the survey of government data bases and
systems, was also used as a basis for estimating the potential costs for operating an EPA
clearinghouse.
2 7 5 ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional information was collected and analyzed in the form of
literature searches, interviews with operators of existing clearinghouses, and reviews of
other existing EPA systems. Interviews were conducted with the following
clearinghouses: the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse (NATICH), the local
Public Document Rooms of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), National
Pesticide Telecommunications Network (NPTN), the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Information Service, the Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program (CEPP)
Hotline, the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), the Environmental
Information Exchange Network of the Environmental Defense Fund, and the National
Chemical Response and Information Center (NCRIC) and the Chemical Transportation
Emergency Center (CHEMTREC) of the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA).
This information contributed to the definition of the EPA clearinghouse option a:;d to
compilation of additional information for the other options.
22 ASSUMPTIONS
Assumptions which have been made regarding the implementation of the
TRI data base for public access are the following:
2-5
-------
The public data base will be maintained with semi-annual
incremental updates or reloads from files extracted from the EPA
internal system. Ongoing data base update, data validation and
quality assurance, and data correction will take place on the EPA
internal system.
Storage capacity is required for approximately 480Mb of
uncompressed data in a flat file in the first year-(10) In the second
year, as the threshold for reporting decreases for manufacturers and
processors, it is expected that about 576 Mb of data will be added,
i.e., about 20% more submitters will provide yearly reports. For
each subsequent year, reporting is anticipated to increase by about
20% over the previous year. The data base with an accumulation of
five years' reporting would therefore contain 3.3 Gb, i.e., 680% of
the first year's data.
The publicly available system will require preprogrammed access to
enable accurate search, retrieval and analysis. This is necessary to
avoid risks involved with ad hoc searching and data analysis, where
incomplete data may be compiled to give inconclusive and
erroneous results.
Standard pre-programmed data analysis, e.g., means, averages,
ratios, percentages, standard deviation, and linear regression, will be
included in the basic system. More sophisticated statistical analysis
is an optional characteristic for an embellished system.
Access via telecommunications will be available to individual users,
without the need for requesting searches from professional
information intermediaries.
Fee waivers will be managed according to policy established by the
EPA based on economic and other factors.01)
The user community for the purpose of this study and the estimated
data base usage is based on the ETD demand analysis.(8) However,
assuming that the analysis is based on full implementation of the
TRI system through Tier C (see Section 2.4), this options paper has
estimated Tier A usage at one-half and Tier B at three-fou ^s of the
total usage provided in the demand analysis. Usage men.. ,cs which
may result as the result of an expanded user community have not
been considered in these estimates.
The identity of chemicals for which a trade secret claim has been
substantiated will not be included on the public data base.
However, release data for the chemical will be contained in the data
base, with a generic descriptor for the chemical.
Regardless of other implementation options, magnetic tapes
containing all data for the public version will be provided to NTIS
for distribution to the public on an ongoing basis.
2-6
-------
2 3 POTENTIAL SYSTEM IMPACTS
Issues were identified in the performance of this study which may impact
the system usage and the cost of the options to the EPA and to the public. The impact of
the following issues cannot be determined until experience has been obtained from TRI
reporting and TRI system usage:
o The exact user community is not well-defined for the system. User
estimates have been based on a non-representative sample of the
bibliographic systems as opposed to numeric systems like the TRI
data base content. Thereft-e, the user community could be much
larger or smaller than is indicated in this document.
o The actual amount of TRI data is unknown. The estimates are
based on early studies, and actual quantity of data will not be known
until after the submission of data. This will impact the estimated
costs for data storage, and potentially the level of interest in the
system by the public.
o It is unclear how many of the submissions will be claimed as trade
secret, which will impact the amount and utility of the data for
interface with complementary data files and other EPA data files.
o The data quality is unknown at this point in the study. Poor data
will certainly affect the amount of usage of the system.
o The "other means" by which TRI will be available will impact the
potential user community for the public access data base It is
unclear this early in the study how many people will actually take
advantage of the "other means" and how adequate the "other means"
will be to satisfy the user's needs.
o The public may prefer to address questions to the EPA
Headquarters, EPA Regions, the States, or even local offices (e g.,
local fire department). This method of access will dilute the
potential user community of the online data base.
o Vendors may acquire the TRI data through NTIS and develop
systems independently. The estimated user community would be
expected to make the TRI data base profitable for vendors who
provide user friendly systems and a good complement of other
benefits, e.g., analysis and display tools and health and
environmental data files.
o Information gathering from potential providers on capabilities and
cost estimates does not provide guaranteed commitments to those
projections until actual contractual negotiations are undertaken.
The options described in this report are to be considered generic,
rather than confirmed agreements.
2-7
-------
24 EVALUATION CRITERIA
The evaluation criteria for the proposed options are the overall access
requirements and functional requirements as specified by the EPA in the CBD
announcement^) and in an OTS memorandum documenting the consensus at a meeting
held on June 22, 1987 regarding the public data base-(12) The evaluation criteria will
form the basis of the comparison analysis in Section 4. The functional characteristics
have been grouped according to three levels (tiers) of implementation.(13) Tier A is
considered by EPA to be the minimum requirements for data base implementation. Tiers
B and C are considered to be optional characteristics which are desirable to enhance the
use of the system, but may not be required in the initial system. Criteria for all three tiers
are evaluated for the potential of any option to meet user and system needs.
2.4.1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
The minimum requirements for the public data base are those mandated
by the legislation and those specified by the EPA in interpretation of the legislation or in
response to comments from the user community. The minimum requirements (Tier A)
are identified as follows:
o Hardware and software to accommodate data base load, data
storage, indexed retrieval, online and offline report formats.
o Accessible to a large user community.
o Reasonable cost for access. An average cost of $100 per hour for
the use of the data base(8) was used as a "reasonable cost" in the
ETD demand analysis. This amount includes connect time,
telecommunications charges, and all other charges associated with
the use of the data base to the user. Printing, training, and
documentation charges are not included.
o Aggregation capabilities for standard arithmetic functions of
addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, and statistical
functions for average, percentage, maximum, minimum, mean,
ratio, standard deviation, and linear regression.
o Accumulation of at least five years of data.
o Search and retrieval based on Boolean logic (i.e., AND, OR,
NOT).
o Downloading capabilities for subsets of data to floppy diskette and
magnetic disk or tape.
2-8
-------
Account management to assign and manage user accounts and to
adjust access costs for fee waiver.
System availability, as a minimum to include the daily core hours
of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight EST(IO) to meet the needs of users
across the country.
User support through hotline inquiry, training, documentation, and
search assistance.
Systems that could not meet Tier A requirements were not considered in
this evaluation
242 OPTIONAL ChAP* "/•:";5TICS
Optional cnaractenst.es • • ..are desirable for the TRI public data base
are included in either Tier 3 or Tier C. The capability of an option to meet the optional
c'.'..iractenstics for both tiers is included in the evaluation of each option.
2421 TierB
The optional characteristics, which will enhance the availability and usage
of the public data base when added to Tier A for the second level of implementation,
include the following:
o Access to SAS or other sophisticated statistical analysis software for
ad hoc analysis and graphics display capabilities, e.g., to prepare
graphs and charts relateo to release data.
o Complementary files for health and environmental effects,
toxicology, chemical industry data, marketing data (e.g, Dun and
Bradstreet files), and geographical data (e.g., longitude and latitude
based on ZIP code for off-site releases).
Tier B characteristics are not required for the initial implementation.
However, these features are expected to enhance the value of the data base in terms of
enhanced data utility and enhanced analysis and display characteristics. The system
usage would be expected to expand with the addition of Tier B. Therefore, the
evaluation of options in Section 3 includes estimated increases in usage and return of user
fees as part of the cost analysis for Tier B.
2-9
-------
2.4.2 2 Tier C
The optional characteristics which in addition to Tiers A and B will
enhance the utility of the public data base Jt the third tier of implementation include the
following:
o Menu driven screens to improve user friendliness.
o Mapping capabilities to create maps that show releases by
geographic area.
o Crosslinks to other EPA data bases, e.g., data base's relevant to
TSCA Inventory updated production data, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, air releases, etc.
Tier C level of implementation is not a requirement for final TRI
implementation. However, it would provide value-added analytical and display
characteristics that will be especially valuable for the multi-year data base. The potential
ability of each option to meet Tier C is addressed in Section 3.
2-10
-------
SECTION 3
DATA BASE OPTIONS
3J BACKGROUND
A definition of the public data base system and identification of the key
features of the data base system is necessary to adequately discuss and compare
alternatives for public access. Common features expected to be met by all data base
options are described in this section as are the criteria for costing an option. Following
the general system description, the four data base support methods selected for
consideration for the public access data base are discussed and ranked according to
specific system characteristics, costs, and benefits. The following options are discussed:
o An EPA Clearinghouse.
o Commercial vendors/information providers.
o An LAG with a government agency provider.
o An agreement with a non-profit organization information provider.
Appendix C contains a table of the system features for each option,
including system features which may not be in the current environment but have been
proposed for TRI public data base support.
All discussion of system capabilities and estimated costs in this report is
based on interviews and discussions held with technical experts representing each of the
various options considered. In all cases, where the analysis is based on the information
provided, it is assumed that the best professional estimate was provided, and no attempt
to assess the reliability of the data was made on the part of EPA or its contractors.
3 1.1 OVERALL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The public data base will be installed in a hardware/software environment
which can accommodate 480 Mb of uncompressed data storage for the first year and, to
accommodate five years of multiyear data, estimated at a 120-160% increase for each
subsequent year.
3-1
-------
The system will be required to meet the Tier A system requirements as a
minimum. System development and programming may be required to support the TRI
data within a software environment which allows basic search and aggregation
capabilities, repon generation, and downloading capabilities.
In addition to the minimum requirements necessary to meet legislative
mandates, users have identified additional capabilities that will enhance the utility of the
TRI data base. The additional capabilities are evaluated for Tier B (i.e., access to SAS or
other sophisticated statistical analysis software and interfaces to complementary data
files) and tor Tier C (i.e., menu-driven queries, mapping software and interfaces with
other EPA data bases).
The system will be accessible at least 16 hours per day, 7 days a week and
in the core hours of 6 a.m. to 12 midnight EST through major telecommunications
ri-tworks and WATS line access. A specific hardware/software vendor will not be
defined (e.g., IBM versus DEC). However, system access must be enabled through dumb
terminals. Subsequent enhancements may require special access equipment, e.g..
graphics terminals or personal computers (PCs) for utilization of mapping capabilities or
graphic display of sophisticated statistical analyses.
User support will be provided in the form of training sessions, user
documentation, inquiry hotline for system and data questions, and search assistance. The
plans for the public access data base will include extensive marketing in the form of
meetings, brochures, journal advertisement, and convention exhibits, in order to reach the
widest audience possible for the system, and thereby to maximize its use.
31.2 SYSTEM COSTS
In order to estimate the cost of an option to the EPA, the following costing
criteria were evaluated for each option, where applicable:
o Hardware lease and/or purchase.
o Software lease and/or purchase.
o Hardware/Software maintenance fees.
o Data storage fees.
3-2
-------
o System development.
o Telecommunications.
o Markeang.
o Systems operations and maintenance staff.
o User support.
o Account management.
o Fee Waiver.
o Miscellaneous costs, such as printer, paper or facility preparation
costs.
All four options will require EPA staffing to support the fee waiver
account management Therefore, no additional cost is included for fee waiver account
management for any of the options. However, costs for fee waiver usage have been
calculated and included for each option to reflect an estimate of 200 fee waiver accounts,
according to the ETD demand analysis. Fee waiver costs to the EPA are expected to
increase by tier, because usage is expected to increase with improved capabilities.
3.1 3 USER COSTS
Analysis of the cost to the user is focused on the subscription fees, access
fees, and telecommunications fees, where applicable, as provided by each option's
technical expert. There are additional cost factors which contriubte to user cost but were
not evaluated because they are primarily user-driven costs which will vary among users
(e.g , offline and online printing, save search, training, etc.).
3 2 EPA CLEARINGHOUSE
3.2.1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The EPA Clearinghouse option represents the EPA's establishment of a
dedicated computer system and services group to support the public access data base.
Preliminary analysis (4) of the EPA Clearinghouse option explored the option of
SL sporting the TRI public access data base within the existing EPA IBM 3090
timeshared environment. However, it was determined that the most effective manner to
3-3
-------
support the EPA Clearinghouse environment is with a dedicated IBM 4381
hardware/software environment.
Exhibit 3-1 contains a diagram of the proposed system configuration.
Computer operations will be established on an IBM 4381 mainframe and peripheral
hardware, purchased or leased solely for the support of the TRI public access, and
maintained in the EPA National Computer Center (NCC) facility at Research Triangle
Park (RTP), North Carolina. The application system will be a copy of the internal EPA
AD ABAS TRI system minus the trade secret data. Additional software application
development will be necessary to provide some aggregation capabilities and user friendly
access to the software developed for the EPA internal TRI data base.
There is no convenient command language, such as is used by most
commercial vendors, available within the EPA for usage with the EPA ADABAS system.
Therefore, menu driven search and retrieval are expected to be implemented at the Tier A
level for this option.
A gateway approach has been taken with this option to accommodate the
Tier B characteristic of complementary file enhancement, without the additional expense
of loading and maintaining additional files in the EPA Clearinghouse hardware/software
environment. With this approach the user must establish his/her own account with a
vendor, e.g., The National Library of Medicine (NLM) or Chemical Information System
(CIS), if he/she wants to access complementary health and environmental data and other
data files, such as MEDLINE, TOXLFNE, RTECS, HSDB, AQUIRE, CCRIS, and
CHRIS. A one-way communications path will be made available on the EPA
Clearinghouse machine. The user will be prompted for a vendor access and password
identification. A search argument file established with the TRI system, e.g., a list of CAS
Registry numbers, will be transmitted to the vendor machine. In order to continue, the
user will remain logged onto both his/her TRI account on the EPA machine and his/her
vendor account. The gateway arrangement proposed will not allow transfer of vendor
data back to the EPA machine, because two-way communications would entail a more
costly networking arrangement and a formal agreement between the vendor and EPA.
3-4
-------
EPA CLEARINGHOUSE
VENDOR
System
^** ' ^>
^^ _^
COMPLE
MENTARY
FILES
I-xhihit3-l
-------
Tier B statistical analysis will be accommodated with SAS software for
statistics, graphic reporting and display. UNIMAP and UNIEDIT graphics software
packages will be included for interactive contour mapping and modeling under Tier C.
The proposed IBM 438' hardware configuration will not accommodate
the addition of other EPA data bases for the Tier C crosslinked EPA database
requirement. In order to accommodate this, it is expected that an IBM 3090 hardware
configuration would be necessary. The cost for an IBM 3090 configuration was not
calculated. However, it is estimated that it would be an order of magnitude higher than
the costs for an IBM 4381 configuration provided in this document.
User support will be provided in the form of a hotline. Personnel to
provide search services, operations and maintenance, documentation, training, and
marketing will also be the EPA's responsibility.
322 COSTS
A summary table of costs is shown in Exhibit 3-2, including initial costs
for first year implementation and five year annualized averages. For the EPA
Clearinghouse, the upper limit of the range represents the cost to the EPA if no access
fees are recovered from the user community, e.g., no usage of the system. The lower end
cost of the EPA option is based on the return expected to the government if user fees are
collected from the maximum estimated user community based on the demand analysis
calculations. It should be noted that the net cost of the EPA Clearinghouse option is very
dependent on the system usage and the amount of user fee to be charged. The costs
which were used to compile Exhibit 3-2 include:
o Hardware and software costs which include the purchase/leasing
cost by year. Because it is assumed that this computer will be
maintained in the NCC facility, under existing EPA contractual
agreements, no additional fees are charged for ADABAS,
NATURAL, and other software which is site-licensed to that
facility. Also included are hardware/software maintenance fees,
telecommunications setup and ongoing maintenance, and system
development costs for Tier enhancements.
3-6
-------
First Year
TIER A
TIERB
TIERC
Five Year
TIER A
TIERB
TIERC
EPA
Clearinghouse
Implementation Cost:
$2.324,220-
$2,684,220
$2,399,640-
$2,939,640
$2.337,000-
$3,057,000
Annualized Average:
$1,411.684-
$1,771,684
$1,339,104-
$1,879,104
$1.226,912-
$1,946,912
Vendor
A
$ 493,000-
$1,058,000
$ 604,000-
$1,169,000
$1,016.000-
$1,581,000
$ 173,000-
$2,327,000
$ 204,000-
$2,358,000
$ 296.000-
$2,450,000
Summary
B IAG
$315.000 $437,686
$360,000 $627,686
$650,000 $742.686
$366,200 $485,401
$411,200 $535,401
$541,200 $570,401
of Cost to Government
Exhibit 3-2
^
Non-Prolil
Organisation
Information
Provider
$330.400-
$355,000
$370.400
$395,000
$610.000-
$634,600
$190.400-
$251,900
$230.400-
$291,900
$310.000-
$371,500
>
-------
o Costs of suppon staff, including marketing costs which have been
estimated for the establishment of a marketing staff and the
preparation and presentation of monthly meetings, brochures, and
quarterly convention exhibits. User suppon costs which include
training, hotline for inquiries, search assistance, and documentation.
o Fee waiver costs reflect the annual estimated usage costs incurred
from 200 accounts, based upon estimated S25/hour estimated access
fee.(8) Fee waiver costs are expected to increase by tier, because
access time is expected to increase as capabilities improve.
3.3 COMMERCIAL VENDORS/INFORMATION PROVIDERS
3 3 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The commercial vendors/information providers option represents the use
of an existing commercial environment to provide access to the TRI public access data
base. With this option, the system will be supported in an existing hardware/software
environment, with an established suppon infrastructure for marketing, training, and user
suppon. The TRI data base will be enhanced by the vendor's complementary and
crosslink files, as well as through the use of other vendor services.
The offered features and costs for this option are included for two separate
vendors to illustrate the variance between the vendors that might be expected. The
detailed system characteristics for each of the vendor systems are provided in Appendix
C. Commercial vendor systems commonly are implemented with a user friendly
command language, as required for Tier A implementation. Vendors interviewed for this
analysis indicated that menu-driven query systems are also a viable option for future
system enhancements.
The Vendor "A" approach is to develop customized, menu-driven
software for analyzing TRI data at various levels of aggregation. In addition to listing
user-selected data, the system would produce graphic presentations of facility, company,
industry, and locational shares and rankings based upon user-specified quantities and
weights. The proposed system would allow users to map combinations of variables to
identify geographic patterns and relationships.
3-8
-------
3.32 COSTS
The Vendor "A" approach requires EPA to pay up-front development
costs for implementation of a customized search, retrieval, and analysis system. Vendor
"A" will supply the access mechanism, the user support, the training, documentation.
account management, all without further cost to the EPA, given the expected user
community. The Vendor "A" option also includes data storage fees, chargeable to the
EPA in the event the user community does not materialize. The Vendor "A" option
includes a S280 initiation fees and $1.200 of minimum annual usage, neither of which
apply to fee-waiver accounts. Computational and other charges are included in the
minimum usage fees, but are independent of connect time. Different rates apply to larger
users. Vendor "A" stressed that the actual costs and pricing schedules for TRI may vary
significantly from those presented here depending on the number and quality of reports
submitted under Section 313, and depending on the actual size and character of user
demand for online TRI data.
The Vendor "B" approach requires the EPA to provide the TRI data in a
compatible format, and to pay some of the aggregation development costs, in addition to
the monthly storage costs and the marketing costs. At the Tier C level, EPA would also
be requested to pay for the implementation of any menu-driven search and retrieval
software. Vendor "B" will provide the telecommunications access and user support,
training, and account management, all within the user fees.
The costs for Vendor A support, which were used to compile Exhibit 3-2
reflect:
o Data storage fees, which will be charged to the EPA only if there is
not sufficient usage to offset the costs to the vendor. The storage
fee ranges from no cost to EPA for >200 users to highest cost if
there are no users. The data storage fees will also increase as the
data base grows and crosslinked files are added.
o Initial load costs, which reflect development costs to be charged to
the EPA for system development and internal EPA costs for the
EPA to provide the TRI data in an ASCII file format to the Vendor.
o Additional development costs reflect the development of Tier A
aggregation capabilities, customized Tier B health and
environmental effects files, and customized software for analysis
and mapping of the crosslinked Tier C files.
3-9
-------
Fee waiver costs reflect vendor charges to the EPA for one large
account subscription fee and for initiation and connect-time fees for
200 user codes. These costs are based on large-user prices. They
do not include variable costs other than connect-time, such as
computational and other charges. Vendor A also indicated that they
would absorb account management for FOIA requests as a public
service.
The costs to the EPA for Vendor B support reflect:
o Data storage fees, which will increase as the data base grows, due
to multiyear storage. Data storage fees will also increase with the
addition of crosslinked EPA files. The Vendor indicated that the
fixed storage cost is based upon 500 MB of uncompressed storage.
o Initial load costs, which reflect the cost for the EPA to convert the
TRI data to the file format used by the vendor. This will include
systems analysis and programming support by the vendor and the
EPA.
o Additional system development costs, which reflect the Tier A
development of aggregation capabilities. Tier C menu-driven
access, and development and marketing of a PC-based mapping
package for Tier C. The package would be charged to the users as a
separate item, on request.
o Marketing costs, which are included for monthly meetings,
brochures, and exhibits.
o Fee waiver charges, which reflect the estimated 200 user usage fees
which will be billed to an EPA account. The vendor indicated that
the subscription fee for the fee waiver account will be waived.
A chart showing comparative costs for first year and five year annualized
net costs is provided as Exhibit 3-2. For the commercial vendor support, there is a wide
range of cost between Vendors A and B. The Vendor A approach was to charge the EPA
data storage fees for the system if the user community of 2400 users does not materialize.
This accounts for the wide price difference in the Vendor A range. In the case of Vendor
3, the premise of the proposed support is that the EPA will pay a fixed level of support,
regardless of the user community.
3-10
-------
Because Vendor A proposed to charge EPA for storage in the event of
non-usage of the public access data base, "best" and "worst" cases have been shown for
this vendor which differ by storage cost estimates. While Vendor A indicates that the
storage charge will unlikely be necessary, it reflects vendor information. Therefore, costs
are shown as gross and net for Vendor A option.
3.4 IAG WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCY PROVIDER
3 4 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
This option requires an interagency agreement (IAG) with another
government agency to share computing resources to provide public access to the TRI
data base. The government agency selected for discussion has had several years of
experience providing user support, training, and marketing for a user community of
primarily health care professionals. Specific features of this option are provided in
Appendix C
342 COSTS
A table, comparing the costs for each option, was provided as Exhibit 3-2
This option reflects total costs regardless of usage, although the agency indicated the
costs may decrease with usage.
Cost for the LAG option are based upon:
o The additional systems and telecommunications hardware to
suppon the TRI public access data base within the existing
configuration. Prices increase by year proportional to the increase
in data.
o Additional staffing requirements to expand the existing user suppon
and systems maintenance staff. Marketing costs were also
estimated to expand the current marketing budget for a broader
market base.
o Fee waiver cos. which reflect the charge to the EPA for system
usage for 200 estimated user accounts. Fee waiver costs are
expected to increase through Tiers B and C because access ome is
expected to increase as capabilities improve.
3-11
-------
The • nformation provider for this option has indicated that the existing
system environment is undergoing continuous enhancement. As new system
enhancements are made to the entire system, all users and file owners share in these
improvements. Hence, many features considered as enhancements for the TRI public
access data base may be implemented by the agency and the EPA costs are then minimal
with respect to these enhancements, especially menu-driven screens and enhancements to
user friendliness.
3.5 AGREEMENT WITH NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
INFORMATION PROVIDER
351 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
This option requires an agreement with a non-profit organization
information provider. The basis used for analysis of this option is an existing university
provider. A university will provide public access to the TRI from its contractor
hardware/software environment. The university will provide the user support, access.
training, marketing, and ongoing operations through its own resources. The specific
university consulted for this opnon would plan to load the existing internal TRI data
bases in ADABAS/NATURAL and the EPA internal system's applications software onto
the university's system. Some additional development, beyond that planned for the EPA
internal system and comparable to that for the EPA Clearinghouse Opnon, will be needed
to enhance user friendliness and to provide aggregation capabilities. This option would
be expected to use menu-driven software at the Tier A and B levels, because it will be
using enhanced EPA software which does not include a convenient command language
for search and retrieval.
3.5 2 COSTS
A table, comparing the costs for each opnon, is provided as Exhibit 3-2.
Because the organization proposed to charge EPA for storage in the event of non-usage
of the public access data base, "best" and "worst" cases have been shown which differ by
storage cost esnmates.
3-12
-------
Costs are discussed below:
o Data storage fees will be charged to the EPA only when there is
little or no system usage to defray these costs. System usage to the
level of the maximum demand analysis estimates will defray the
costs.
o System development costs are included for the Tier A and B
aggregation capabilities and the Tier C crosslinked file loading and
modification of a PC-based mapping package which has already
been developed. The mapping package would be charged to the
users as a separate item, on request.
o The existing marketing support for this option is not expected to be
adequate for supporting the TRI user community. Therefore,
marketing costs have been estimated by the organization to
supplement the effon.
o Fee waiver costs reflect 200 estimated user account subscription
fees and usage fees which will be billed to the EPA. The
organization indicated that subscription fees will be waived for
these accounts. The organization also indicated that there is
precedent for establishing different rate structures for managing the
fee waiver matter, although this is not considered for this analysis.
3.6 EVALUATION OF REQUIREMENTS
The previous subsections derailed the proposed approach of the
information providers to meet the Tier A, B, and C requirements specified in Section 2.3
and the costs associated with each Tier. This section provides an evaluation of the
proposed capability of each option to meet user requirements.
Ranking scores were assigned in an attempt to quantify the potential for
each option to meet the requirements at each tier of implementation. The ability of each
option to meet the requirements are compared on the table in Exhibit 3-3 on a scale of 1-
5, with 5 representing the most advantageous option choice. 3 representing average
acceptability, and 1 representing least advantageous.
3-13
-------
X
TIER A:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
.0,
v
Hardware and
Software
Accessible
Reasonable
Cost to User
Aggregation
Capabilities
Accumulation
of Data
Search and
Retrieval
Downloading
Capabilities
Account
Management
System
Availability
User Support
I-I'A
Clearinghouse
3
4
5
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
A
4
3
1
5
3
3
3
2
5
4
Ability
1
(1
Vendois
u
4
3
3
5
3
4
3
2
5
4
to Meet Requirements
Exhibit 3-3
'.igc 1 til 2)
1AG
4
5
5
3
3
4
3
2
5
4
Non hiilil ^
Orgjiii/.iluin
lnloriii.ilion
Provider
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
*
5
3
^>
-------
r
TIKRU:
1 1 ) Sophisticated
Statistical Analysis
Software
12) Complementary Files
TIER C:
1 3) Menu Driven
Access
14) Mapping
Capabilities
15) Crosslink to
EPA Data Bases
Subtotal Tier A:
Subtotal through Tier B:
Total through Tier C:
Legend:
5 - Most Advantageous
4-
3 - Average
2-
1 - Least Advantageous
S^
I-I'A . Vendors
Clearinghouse A 1)
3 3 3
1 4 4
353
352
_L A _2
30 33 36
34 40 43
41 54 52
Ability to Meet Requirements
r.xhibil 3 3
(1 \ige2 of 2)
Non I'lolil
liiioriii.il ion
IAG Provider
2 3
5 2
4 3
2 2
_2 _2
38 32
45 36
53 43
J
-------
3 6 I TIER A
3.6.1 1 Hardware and Software
All of the options adequately meet the requirement for hardware and
software to accommodate data base load, data storage, indexed retrieval, and online and
offline report formats. While the EPA Clearinghouse was ranked at the average
acceptability level, the other options were assigned higher advantage due to the existing
and proposed environment.
3.6.1.2 Accessible to a Large User Community
All of the options have the potential to meet the requirement that the TRI
public access system be accessible to the user community discussed in Section 1.3 of this
document. The EPA Clearinghouse is considered to be more advantageous because it
will be specifically designed to meet the needs of the appropriate community. The IAG
discussed reaches a large segment of the anticipated user community. The agreement
with the non-profit organization information provider and the commercial vendors have a
more limited existing user community.
3.6.1.3 Reasonable User Cost
Exhibit 3-4 contains a chart of the average annual user access cost
estimates usage is based upon the ETD demand analysis for system usage.(8) The costs
to the user presented in this chart are based upon subscription fees, access fees, and
telecommunications fees, where applicable. It was assumed that the maximum usage
would occur at Tier C implementation. Therefore, an estimate of 12 hours of access
time/year/user was used for Tier C estimates with a correspondingly lower usage of 9 and
6 hours for Tiers B and A, respectively.
With the exception of the EPA Clearinghouse, the estimated user access
fee decreases with usage, due to the wider distribution of the subscription fees by hour.
In the case of the EPA Clearinghouse option, the user access fee increases for Tiers B
and C, reflecting the increased cost to the user for gateway access to complementary
files, where connect time will be charged by EPA and by the vendor.
3-16
-------
*
^
EPA
Clearinghouse
TIER A> $25/hour
$150/year/user
TIER B2 $4Q/hour
$360/year/user
TIER C3 $40/hour
$480/year/user
Vendor
A
$243/hour**
$1480/year/user
$!64/hour**
$1480/year/user
$123/hour**
$1480/year/user
B
$118/hour*
$705/year/user
$l04/hour*
$930/year/user
$95/hour*
$1140/year/user
IAG
$2S/hour
$!50/y ear/user
$25/hour
$225/year/user
$25/hour
$300/year/user
Non I'rolu
()r£iiiii/.j|mii
liilbrinulioii
Provider
$84/hour*
$S02/year/user
$78/hour*
$703/year/user
$75/hour*
$904/year/user
iTier A estimate is based upon six hours of access time/year/user.
2Tier B estimate is based upon nine hours of access time/year/user.
3'Fier C estimate is based upon 12 hours of access time/year/user.
"'Includes subscription fee.
** Includes $280 initiation fees and $1200 minimum annual use, which may allow
for even more than 12 hours of use. Different rates apply to larger users.
Average Annual User Access Cost
Exhibit 3-4
-------
Using $100/hour as a maximum acceptable access cost, the EPA
Clearinghouse option at S25-40/hour, and the IAG option at $25/hour represent good
value to the user community. Vendor B costs range from $118-95, by Tier and the non-
profit organization information provider ranges from $84-75 by Tier, therefore, were
assigned acceptable cost scores. However, the usage cost of Vendor A is unacceptable
based upon the minimum annual usage and initiation fee requirements.
3 14 Aggregation Capabilities
Aggregation capabilities represent standard arithmetic functions of
addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, and statistical functions for average,
percentage, maximum, minimum, ratio, standard deviation, and linear regression.
The EPA Clearinghouse, IAG, and agreement with non-profit organization
information provider opnons will require system development in order to provide the
minimally adequate aggregation capabilities for the data base. The Vendor Systems
already provide these capabilities within their existing systems.
3 6 1J Accumulation of Data
All of the options have been designed to adequately support the
accumulation of at least five years of data at the rate of growth expected, and, therefore,
have been assigned average scores.
3.6 1.6 Search and Retrieval
The IAG and the Vendor B currently have command level software which
enables TRI searching. Vendor A proposes extensive programming to develop a
customized search and retrieval system. Currently no generic, command language
software is available for either the non-profit organization information provider or for the
EPA Clearinghouse. Therefore, additional software development would be required.
3-18
-------
3.6.1 7 Downloading Capabilities
All options will support download to floppy disk by an online PC user and
have been assigned average acceptability. The data base will also be available to the
public on magnetic tape through NTIS.
3618 Account Management
Account management to assign and manage user accounts is available for
all options. However, for all options, it is assumed for this analysis that access
adjustments for fee waiver will be handled by the EPA, and not by individual providers.
therefore, all options have been assigned less acceptability than the EPA Clearinghouse
option.
3619 System Availability
The EPA Clearinghouse option is designed to meet the minimum core
hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight and has been assigned average acceptability. The
other options represent 24 hour per day 7 days per week availability and have been
assigned most advantageous scores.
361.10 User Support
The commercial vendors and the IAG option already have an established
infrastructure to suppon the user community with search assistance, hotlines,
documentation, and training; therefore, they have been assigned high scores. The
university considered for the non-profit organization information provider option has
limited experience in this capacity, however, and is at an average acceptable level.
The EPA Clearinghouse is at a major disadvantage in regard to user
suppon services, because suppon infrastructures for public data base access do not
currently exist within the Agency and will have to be established for this option.
3-19
-------
3 6.2 TIER B
3621 Sophisticated Statistical Analysis Software
With the exception of the IAG option, all of the options will have SAS
available for statistical analysis as well as graphics report generation enabled by SAS and
have been assigned average scores.
Based on the data files, usage and system configurations currently in place
for the IAG, it is unlikely that SAS or equivalent statistical software will be available for
potential users under that option. Therefore, a PC-based statistical package was proposed
for accommodation of the Tier B requirement, at additional development cost to the EPA
This alternative may be available for use, regardless of the option selected.
3622 Complementary Files
Complementary file availability is most advantageous with the IAG
option, which currently makes available to users a multitude of files containing toxicity
data which may enhance the TRI data utility. The vendors also have an impressive list of
complementary files to enhance TRI data utility. These will vary with choice of vendor
and are an important consideration when selecong a vendor.
Of least benefit are the EPA Clearinghouse and the agreement with the
non-profit organization information provider. The EPA Clearinghouse will make these
files available at increased cost to the user through gateway access to a vendor system.
Complementary files can be added for the non-profit organization information provider
option as specified in the agreement. However, this may increase the cost to the EPA for
storage and system development/conversion costs.
3.6.3 TIER C
3631 Menu-Driven Access
Menu-driven access screens to improve user friendliness will be available
for the EPA Clearinghouse and for the non-profit organization information provider
option, resulting from the EPA TRI internal data base development. These options been
assigned average acceptability. Both vendors proposed menu-driven access development
3-20
-------
at a cost to EPA. However, Vendor A proposes a very sophisncated capability which is
quite user friendly and so has been assigned highest marks. The IAG currently offers
menu-driven capabilities and has, therefore, been assigned above average acceptability
3632 Mapping
Mapping capabilities specified for Tier C will be enabled on the EPA
Clearinghouse through the UNIMAP and UNIEDIT software on the system. Vendor A
has proposed a very sophisticated geographical software development approach as a basis
for the TRI public access data base in recognition of the maximal benefit of this approach
to the user for TRI data. This vendor has been assigned maximum values for the
requirement.
In order to satisfy the mapping enhancement for the other options, a PC-
based mapping package will have to be developed and distributed. This would make the
enhancement available only to a user with access to a PC and, therefore, decreases the
acceptability
3633 Crosslink Files
Lack of crosslink file availability is a disadvantage for all of the options,
with the exception of Vendor A who currently has some EPA files available to the user in
the vendor's data processing environment and has proposed extensive crosslinked file
availability. The other options with the exception of the EPA Clearninghouse Option,
have a few files currently available and additional files could be negotiated to be
provided for the other commercial vendor, for the LAG, and for the non-profit
organization information provider. However, this will increase the storage and system
development costs to the EPA. Access to crosslinked files is not accommodated by the
EPA Clearinghouse option.
3-21
-------
3.7 COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL RISK
In addition to the evaluation of costs and the ability to meet the
requirements, it is necessary to include a discussion of potential risks involved in the
selection of an option, such as:
o Timely negotiation.
o Timely system implementation.
o Long-term availability of the system.
Exhibit 3-5 shows a comparison of the relative risk potential for each
option and each is discussed below. The options were compared to each other and
ranked on a scale of 1-5 for each risk, where low score indicates high risk potential.
3 7 1 TIMELY NEGOTIATION
The timeliness risk reflects the length of time to obtain a formal agreement
to support the public access system. Acquisition of resources to manage information
requires that agreements be negotiated between the EPA and potential providers.
Contract vehicles exist for most of the hardware/software proposed for the EPA
Clearinghouse. However, acquisition of equipment, preparation of the facility, and
development of a support group will be time consuming and has the potential to delay the
negotiation. The wide range of available services and potential costs associated with the
private sector will require more time for evaluation and negotiation for agreement with
commercial vendors and with the non-profit organization information provider than for
negotiating an agreement with a Government Agency. Therefore, the LAG has been
determined to have the most acceptable (lowest level) of risk for timely negotiation of an
agreement.
3.7.2 TIMELY SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
The risk associated with system implementation is whether the proposed
system can be implemented in a timely manner. Timeliness for implementation is
expected to be most favorable for the non-profit organization information provider at the
Tier A level, based on the one month implementation schedule expected for the loading
and implementation of the ADABAS files after an agreement is signed.
3-22
-------
Non I 'roht
Risks
I) Timely Agreement
2) Timely System Implementation
3) Long-term Availability
Total
lil'A
Clearinghouse
5
8
VI-NIX3RS
A B
1 1
3 4
i 1
5 6
IAC
4
3
_4
11
Inlormulion
IVovider
I
4
J
8
K>
Legend:
5
4
3
2
I
lowest Level of Risk
Moderate Level of Risk
Highest Level of Risk
Comparison of Potential Risk
Exhibit 3-5
-------
Favorable nsk for system implementation is also anticipated for the LAG
and adequate level of risk for commercial Vendor B. These two options represent taking
a flat ASCII data file and implementing it in an existing application environment.
On the other hand, the EPA Clearinghouse and Vendor A represent high
potential of nsk for timely system implementation. While the EPA Clearinghouse, like
the non-profit organization information provider is an ADABAS environment,
hardware/software acquisition is expected to be nmely, as is the establishment of the
support environment. The Vendor A o^'^n will require the design and implementation
of a sophisticated application environment with an estimated six month development and
implementation schedule.
373 LONG TERM A VAJLABILJTY
Long term availability of the TRI public access database is considered in
regard to the legal requirement for the EPA to keep the public access data base available
Long term system availability is most assured with a dedicated system, i.e., the EPA
Clearinghouse. With the other options, ongoing support will be renegotiated at the end of
each contract or agreement. The actual system usage will have an impact on this
consideraoon Non-profit institutions and government agencies are less likely to be
affected by marketing conditions that are not favorable. The potential for vendor renewal
of a contract is very dependent on system usage as it balances against resource utilization
and profits, and so both were rated as high nsk.
3.8 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM .'OSTS
System costs have been compared by Tier for first year implementation
costs and for the estimated annual costs, based on a five-year average. In addition, costs
have been compared according to the level of data base usage, where access by a minimal
number of users has the potential for significantly increasing the cost to the Government.
Exhibit 3-6 provides overall companson of each option by Tier. The first year cost and
ongoing cost to the Government is significantly greater with the EPA Clearinghouse and
the Vendor A options, particularly if system usage is realized at the minimum estimated
level. Other options, including Vendor B, and IAG, and an agreement with a non-profit
3-24
-------
Tier A
TierB
TierC
lil'A
Cleannghouse
Ol
Total
[
3
VI-LNIXJKS
A B
2 4
2 4
2 J
6 II
IAG
Non-l'rofil
Organi/.dlion
Infonn.ilion
Provider
10
II
Legend:
5
4
3
2
1
No Cost
Moderate Cost
Highest Cost
Comparison of System Costs
llxhibit 3-6
-------
organization information provider, do not require that magnitude of initial investment,
and in fact, exhibit relatively low costs for the first year, increasing by year as the need
for additional data storage increases.
3-26
-------
SECTION 4
SUMMARY
4.1 COMPARISON ANALYSIS
Section 3 of this document presented the discussion of four alternatives to
meet the legislative mandate for a publicly available data base for the TRI data. The
discussion included costs, level of ability to satisfy the requirements defined in Section 2,
and a discussion of the potential nsk in supporting a given option. Exhibit 4-1 compares
the options by Tier for the net cost to the Government for the first year and as a five-year
annualized average, average annual costs to the user, capability to meet the
implementation requirements, and potential for risk. A discussion of each comparison
factor follows, with additional consideration for the factors described in Section 2.3
which may affect the system usage and thereby alter the relative costs and benefits.
4 1 1 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM COSTS
System costs have been compared by Tier for first year implementation
costs and for the estimated annual cost, based on a five-year average. In addition, costs
have been compared according to the level of data base usage, where access by a minimal
number of users has the potential for significantly increasing the cost to the Government.
As is indicated m Exhibit 4-1, the first year cost to the Government is significantly
greater with the EPA Clearinghouse and the Vendor A opnons. particularly if system
usage is realized at the minimum estimated level. Other options, including Vendor B. an
IAG, and an agreement with a non-profit organization informaoon provider, do not
require that magnitude of initial investment, and in fact, exhibit relatively low costs for
the first year, increasing as the need for additional data storage increases
4.1 2 COMPARISON OF USER COSTS
The user fees for the EPA Clearinghouse were defined as being equal to
the fees of the LAG, to keep the fees in line with the other Government provider.
However, the user costs associated with the EPA Clearinghouse are greater than for the
IAG at the Tier B and Tier C levels, because the use of a gateway to other mformanon
4-1
-------
to
LPA
Clearinghouse
TIFR A
•Cost to User
•Cost to Government
•Potential Benefits
••Potential Risk
Tier A Total:
TIRR B:
•Cost to User
•Cost to Government
•Potential Benefits
••Potential Risk
Tier B Total:
TIER C:
•Cost to User
•Cost to Government
•Potential Benefits
"Potential Risk
Tier C Total:
* High score indicates high benefit
•• High score indicates less nsk
5
1
25
8
39
3
1
29
8
41
3
1
36
J
48
<:<)MI» .'SON OK OPTIONS
Vendor
A B
1
2
32
J
40
1
2
39
J
47
1
2
53
J
61
3
4
33
.6
46
3
4
40
6
53
3
3
49
6
61
IAG
5
4
33
H
53
5
3
40
11
59
5
3
48
II
67
N
-------
providers for complementary files requires that the user incur charges simultaneously
from the EPA Clearinghouse and from the other information provider while accessing the
complementary files
User costs are therefore most favorable to the user with the IAG, followed
by the EPA Clearinghouse and the non-profit orgamzanon information provider. User
costs would be expected to be least favorable with commercial vendors, although
reasonable user costs can be realized by this option.
4 1 3 COMPARISON OF CAPABILITY TO MEET REQUIREMENTS
All options have the potential to meet the basic Tier A requirements
However, the specific user-fnendlmess of the system, including- the support services.
would be expected to vary among the options The EPA Clearinghouse, being dedicated
to TRI system support has the potential for meeting Tier A requirements at a high level of
satisfaction However, the long term support through the EPA Clearinghouse option
would be expected to be less favorable, due to the lack of convenient access to
complementary files at the Tier B level and the lack of availability of other EPA data
bases at Tier C
The agreement with the nori-pre.It organization information provider also
has the potential for high satisfaction at T.e. t-\ Connnued satisfaction at Tier A, B, and
Tier C levels is dependent upon the development of additional systems with appropriate
complementary files and other EPA data bases
The LAG and commercial vendors have the highest potential for meeting
requirements at the Tier A, Tier B and C Irve's.
4 1 4 COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL RISKS
The potential nsks considered for the TRI implementation include
timeliness factors, both for negotiating an implementation agreement and for
accomplishing the developed system, and long term availability of the system
Acquismon of resources to manage information requires that agreements be negotiated
between the EPA and potential providers. Contract Chicles exist for most of the
hardware/software proposed for the EPA Clearinghouse. However, acquisition of
4-3
-------
equipment, preparation of the facility, and development of a support group will be time
consuming and has the potential to delay the implementation. The wide range of
available services and potential costs associated with the private sector will require more
time for evaluation and negotiation for agreement with commercial vendors than for
negotiating an agreement with a Government Agency. With respect 10 the non-profit
organization information provider, uncertainties exist with respect to a mechanism for
reaching an agreement.
Timeliness for implementation is expected to be most favorable for the
non-profit organization information provider agreement at the Tier A level, because the
EPA internal system, with some enhancements, can be loaded on their existing computer
Timely implementation for the IAG will be affected by the need to acquire additional
equipment and by software enhancements to meet aggregation requirements
Long term system availability is more assured with a dedicated system,
ic. the EPA Clearinghouse Vendors'are less likely to provide ongoing support if
business appears a/e not favorable. Non-profit institutions and government agencies are
less likely to be affected by marketing conditions that are not optimum. Therefore
minimal risk is associated with the IAG and the non-profit organization information
h . /ider options with respect to long-term availability.
4 I 5 SUMMARY OF COMPARISONS
A bar chart is provided as Exhibit 4-2 to illustrate the potential cumulative
benefits of the options when equal consideration is given to system costs, costs to the
user, conformance to requirements, and least nsk for implementation This chart can best
be viewed as providing a relative comparison of the various options. The chart is based
on Tier B requirements, because all but EPA have the existing capability for providing
complementary files. The costs and nsks are based on first year factors, with
consideration for the limiting factors described in Section 2.3. The bar at the left
illustrates a system where maximum benefits would be achieved. The IAG appears to
provide benefits which are closest to optimum.
4-4
-------
CUMULATIVE HFNKFITS FOR TIKR II
A'l" FIRST YFAR COSTS
100
75
50
25
0
MAXIMUM
BENEFIT
I-I'A
C:I.EARINC;H(HJSI-:
VKNDOR
A
VENIX)R
II
IAO
NON I'ROIII
OK(iANI/ATION
INIOKMA IION
I'KOVIDhK
•• kliASONAHI I-! COS 1 TO USIJ<
•• RI;ASONAIII.I-:COST roiii-A
P71 ACCl-JTABIl.rrYOf-RISK
I I CONIORMANCHTOSYSIliM RMQUIRI-MliN'rS
l-xhihii 4-2
-------
42 STRATEGIC APPROACHES
Pnor to selection of an implementation strategy, two essential points must
be considered
First, the foregoing analysis needs to be considered in the context of the
identified uncertainties concerning the exact user community, the actual amount and
quantity of the TRI data, the impact of the "other means" on database use, and possible
public preference for addressing questions to the states and EPA regions or to EPA
headquarters While an attempt has been made to look quantitatively at the various
options to aid the decision-making process, it must be understood that the degree of
certainty implied by the numbers has not been achieved The numbers do, however, aid
in understanding the relative rankings of the various options.
Second, there are strengths and varying degrees of weakness for all the
options For example, the EPA Clearinghouse provides reasonable cost to the user and
the potential for long term system availability On the other hand, weaknesses relate to
the fact that this option represents high cost to the government and lacks an existing user
support structure for a large user community It also will require costly and extensive
software development to provide access to complementary health and environmental
effects files and to crosslink to other EPA files There is also a significant risk that the
EPA Clearinghouse could not be made available within the necessary timeframe Similar
pros and cons are applicable to each of the options
The task for the decision-maker is to decide which mix of strengths and
weaknesses would, on the whole, achieve the public policy objectives for the database
Two possible strategic approaches seem appropriate for consideration, taking ir.to
account the factors discussed above, including system capabilities, risks (timeliness,
certainty of development), costs to government, and costs to users These approaches are
presented, followed by a recommendation for the preferred option relating to each
approach
4-6
-------
4 2 1 UHEMBELLJSHED APPROACH
The unembellished approach focuses only upon Tier A system
requirements, meeting the basic statutory mandate but does not offer significant system
enhancements, without significant additional funding Two options that conceptually fit
within this approach are the EPA Clearinghouse and the agreement with the non-profit
organization information provider. Of these, the non-profit organization information
provider is recommended, assuming that an appropriate mechanism can be found to enter
into an agreement. While the possible system would lack many of the "bells and
whistles" of the more comprehensive proposals examined, this option represents a
moderate risk approach, ranking positively in terms of low cost to government and
moderate cost to users Without enhancements, the database would not achieve
maximum ease of use, and the current market coverage of the possible providers is
limned The EPA Clearinghouse option is not recommended both because of its high
initial cost and the significant nsk that it could not be made available in a timely fashion.
422 ENHANCED SYSTEM APPROACH
The three options, which fall wi:hm this approach, i.e , Vendors A and B
and the IAG, call for up-front development and/or planning for the type of basic data
base described above, plus a variety of system enhancements that go significantly beyond
the statutory requirements and which in various ways add value to the utility of the basic
data These options differ in terms of degree of nsk, cost, and particular enhancements
offered Of these options, the IAG option is recommended because it represents the
lowest level of overall nsk as well as high satisfaction of requirements at a low to
moderate cost to EPA. This option also represents a very low cost alternative for the user
community
If the IAG option is chosen, it is recommended that the LAG be initiated at
the Tier A level of effort due to the uncertainties mentioned and the funding constraints
With this option, partial "Tier B" capabilities of complementary files will be available to
the public at this initial level of support If the market matenalizes as expected, then the
development of the front end statistics and mapping packages could proceed to the full
Tier C" level of effort
4-7
-------
4.3 EPA PLAN NED APPROACH
The EPA planned approach has been to select the enhanced approach,
using the IAG, which has been determined to be the option which most closely provides
the best balance of all evaluation criteria established for this analysis. The EPA believes
that complementary health and environmental effects data files will provide enhanced
utility to the data collected under the Community-Right-To-Know legislation. The IAG
system implementation, which has immediate access to complementary files of
lexicological and other health and safety data, provides the most acceptable solution,
given the high level of acceptability for other analysis factors.
The EPA will periodically evaluate and reassess the need to continue
support or to enhance the system capabilities, as the uncertainties of data volume and
user requirements are resolved and as system usage and utility become established.
In recognition of the importance of ongoing public/private cooperation,
the EPA plans to make the private sector aware of the possible opportunities for
maximizing the full capabilities of TRI data use by the public. In addition to the data
base established for public access to the TRI by the EPA, the public (including
commercial vendors) will be encouraged to make use of the magnetic tape of TRI data,
available through the NTIS.
4-8
-------
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Proposed Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, Community Right-to-
Know Rule, Federal Register. Volume 52, Number 107, June 4,
1987.
(2) Title III Trade Secret Claims Clanficauon, Federal Register.
Volume 52, Number 199, October 1987
(3) "Overview of Requirements for the Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory," CRC Systems, Inc., September 28, 1987.
(4) Options for Making the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI)
Database Available to the Public, Draft, January 1987
(5) "Summaries of Comments from the Apnl 20, 1987 Public Meeting
on Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Database Access," ICF
Incorporated, International Square, Washin£'.on, D C , Apnl 22,
1987
(6) Code of Federal Regulations (41 CFR 20 n. July 1.1987
(7) U S Government Systems Review, Draft, August 1987
(8) Revised Online TRI Data Demand Estimates for Key User
Segments, Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc , December 22, 1987
(9) "Interactive Systems for Community Right-to-Know Database,"
Commerce Business Daily, PS4-ps4-9390, July 28, 1987
(10) "Revised ADP Requirements for the TRI Database," Memorandum
from Michele Zenon to Linda Smith
(11) "Discussion of Fee Policy Issues for the TRI Data Base", Draft,
Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc , 1615 L Street, N W , Washington,
DC.
(12) Cost Estimates for an EPA Clearinghouse, OTS, December 1987.
(13) "Title HI Section 313 Public Database Characteristics,"
Memorandum from Linda A. Travers to Charles L. Elkins, June 26,
1987.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY
-------
GLOSSARY
ADP
ASCII
CBD
CCRIS
CEPP
CERCLIS
CFR
CHEMTREC
CIS
CMA
CRC
EDGAR
EPA
ERIC
ETD
FDPC
FINDS
FIRMR
FOIA
GB
HSDB
HWDMS
Automated Data Processing
Aquatic Information Retrieval
American Standard Code for Information
Interchange
Commerce Business Daily
Chemical Carcinogenesis Research
Information System
Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act Information
System.
Code of Federal Regulations
Chemical Transportation Emergency Center
NIH/EPA Chemicals Information System
Chemical Manufacturers Association
CRC Systems, Inc.
Security and Exchange Commission Pilot Data
Base
Environmental Protection Agency
Educational Resources Information Center
Economics and Technology Division
Federal Data Processing Centers
Facilities Index System
Federal Information Resources Management
Regulation
Freedom of Information Act
Gigabyte
Hazardous Substances Data Bank
Hazardous Waste Data Management System
B-l
-------
IAG Interagency Agreement
EMD Informauon Management Division
JURIS Justice Retneval and Inquiry System
MB Megabyte
NATICH National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
Data Base
NCC National Computer Center
NCRIC National Chemical Response and Information
Center
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NIH National Institutes of Health
NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health
NLM National Library of Medicine
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Eliminanon
System
NPERS National Pesticide Information Retneval System
NPTN National Pesticides Telecommunications Network
NTIS National Technical Information Service
OARM Office of Administrative Resource Management
OTS Office of Toxic Substances
PC Personal Computer
PIPQUIC Program Integration Project Queries Use in
Interactive Command
PTO Patent and Trademark Office
RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information
System
RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
RTF Research Triangle Park
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
STORET Storage and Retrieval of Water Quality Information
B-2
-------
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
UTIL Utility Emission Inventory Data
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
OPTION FEATURES
-------
OPTION FEATURES
OPTION
Feature
System Availability
Basic Search
Capabilities
Downloading
Printer
Fee Structure with
Waivers
Sophisticated Statistics
Complementary Files
LPA
Clearinghouse
•I6hrs/day
7 days/week
•menu driven
•floppy disk
*mag tape
•Online
•Oflline
•Yes
•Mainframe
SAS.
•Depends on System
being accessed
through gateway
VLNHORS
A B
24 hrVday
7 days/week
command language
•menu driven
floppy disk
mag. tape
CD-ROM
Online
Offline
•Yes
SAS. SPSS
•chemical
•locauona!
•population
•facility
24 hrs/day
7 days/week
command language
floppy disk
mag tape
Online
Offline
No
Mainframe
SAS. MLAB
5 health and
environmental
effects data
bases
IAG
24 hrs/day
7 days/week
command language
•menu driven
floppy disk
mag. tape
Online
Offline
No
•potential
as PC
package or
on system
10 health and
environmental
effects data
bases
N on Profit
Organisation
Information
Provider
24 IWday
7 days/week
command language
•menu driven
floppy disk
mag tape
COM fichc
Online
Offline
•Yes
Mainframe
SAS
few health
and environmental
effects data bases
* Proposed to lie (levelled lor 'I HI |Hihln. .uic.\\ il.ii.i l
-------
OPTION FKATUKKS
umoN
temss
Mapping
Crosslink 10 other
EPA Data Bases
User Support
Established Market
kPA
OeanngbouK
•Mainframe
UN1MAP
UNIEDfT
None
•utkLUflKUUIIon
•framing ynvfi
•holme
9 w«rvfcin0
>C ml %.*liil|fr
None
VLMXJKS
A B
•Ye*
Negotiable
6t0^5f»«en
Irammg (weekly)
hotline
Industry.
Government
Finance
lp«.-TTt»««rm»l
AcademK
Legit/ Account dig
•PCSyaeni
lobedcvckyed
Negotiable
2SW 3000 users
(ftiTir^rruaiKWi
onlme training
Industry
Government
Academe
International
IAG
•PC System
10 be
uucgutol
witbTRI
Negotiable
l3SOOosers
^^pHyX^OfMt
trammg(manthly)
bad me
industry
•** ~
OUH CI UUHJH
tntenational
Aradrmr
HeahbCate
Legal Finns
InlumutMMi
ICSyaem
Negotiable
300 users
online trammg
biMlme
PC -based tutorials
Industry
Government
Academic
ube developedfoiTRI pubic access daubuc
------- |