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

-------