&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
HCOS
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data
in EPA's National Systems
Data Collection by State Agencies
U.S. Environmental Environmental Council of
Protection Agency States
One Stop Reporting
Program
September 30, 1999
-------
State Environmental Data in EPA's National Systems
This report was made possible with the support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
through Cooperative Agreement CX-824461-01. Although this report was produced with the
involvement and review of ECOS membership and senior EPA staff, the opinions expressed
herein are not necessarily theirs. Prepared under contract to EPA by Barbara F. Bass, Ph.D.
Project Director: R. Steven Brown, ECOS.
Jointly Published by
Environmental Council of States (ECOS)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
September 30,1999
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...
INTRODUCTION
AEROMETRIC INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (AIRS)/
AIRS FACILITY SUBSYSTEM (AFS)
AEROMETRIC INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (AIRS)/
AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM (AQS)
BIENNIAL REPORTING SYSTEM (BRS)
PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM (PCS)
SAFE DRINKING WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM (SDWIS/FED)..
WATER QUALITY INFORMATION SYSTEM (STORET - STOrage and
RETrieval of U.S. Waterways Parametric Data)
TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INVENTORY SYSTEM (TRIS)
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are committed to building a strong
partnership on environmental information management. In this evolving relationship, the States and EPA
are addressing a variety of significant information management and exchange issues that support the
respective program needs of EPA and State environmental agencies and move their partnership toward a
more performance-based environmental management system.
Performance-based environmental protection demands sound data reporting on releases from sources of
potential pollution and on the quality of the air, water and land that surrounds us. Increased public and
political needs for timely, reliable environmental information also drive the demand for sound reporting
data. In early 1999, ECOS and the EPA's One Stop Reporting Program undertook a research effort to
paint a clearer picture of State agencies' role in collecting and managing environmental information with
an eye towards pinpointing opportunities for improving data flows of critical data streams between states
and EPA. For purposes of the analysis, environmental pollutant data were defined as information on
pollutant releases to the environment (e.g., air emissions, water discharges), hazardous waste
management, and ambient levels of pollutants.
The study finds that States are responsible for the collection and submission of 83 to 99 percent of the
environmental pollutant data contained in six key EPA data systems. The mean of the percentages is 94
percent.
Percentage of Data Collected by States in 6 EPA National Systems
System1 Type of Data in System % Data Collected by States
AIRS/AFS air pollution - stationary sources 99
AJRS/AQS air pollution - ambient sources 99
SDWIS drinking water 99
PCS wastewater discharges 832
STORET waterway quality 90
BRS hazardous waste 92
The results of the study make it clear that the States have the primary responsibility for the collection of
environmental pollutant data. These findings are supported by die trend, within the last decade, of States
assuming more delegations for carrying out major environmental programs. The study further support
the need for continued work through partnership to create efficient, timely ways of sharing critical high
quality environmental data.
Aerometnc Information Retrieval System/AIRS Facility Subsystem (AIRS/AFS). Aerometric Information Retneval System/Air Quality
Subsystem (AKS/AQS); Biennial Reporting System (BRS), Permit Compliance System (PCS), Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS); Water Quality Information System (STORET). Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS) also contains environmental
pollutant data but was not included in the study because reports are submitted simultaneously to the States and EPA
This figure is for reports from major facilities, the figure for reports from minor facilities (which States are not required to report to EPA) is 94
percent
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems T
-------
INTRODUCTION
"...the One Stop strategy is unique. Recognizing the importance of States as primary collectors
and stewards of environmental data, One Stop is partnering with the states to jointly implement
fall-scale reporting and data management reforms. "
From the "One Stop Reporting Program Strategy", One Stop Reporting Program, EPA,
INTRODUCTION
The States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are committed to building a
strong partnership on environmental information management. In this mature yet evolving
relationship, the States and EPA are addressing a variety of significant information management
and exchange issues that include activities which:
define what information is needed to set priorities, track progress, manage and oversee
environmental programs and inform the public;
ensure that information is collected and exchanged as accurately and efficiently as
possible; and
promote and encourage the respectful use and release of information across varied
information exchanges, interests and audiences.
These types of activities support the respective program needs of EPA and State environmental
agencies and move their partnership toward a more performance-based environmental
management system.
Performance-based environmental protection demands sound data reporting on releases from
sources of potential pollution and on the quality of the air, water and land that surrounds us.
Increased public and political needs for timely, reliable environmental information also drive the
demand for sound reporting data. To support the States and EPA in their commitment to
innovative approaches to environmental management and reporting, the ECOS and the One Stop
Reporting Program undertook a study to quantify the extent to which States collect
environmental pollutant reporting data in the 13 national data systems targeted in EPA's
Reinventing Environmental Information (REI) Action Plan3 (Table 1). It is hoped that the
findings will be useful for targeting opportunities to improve data exchange practices based on
compatible data standards.
3 Reinventing Environmental Information (REI) Action Plan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft version
11/25/97.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems i
-------
TABLE 1. EPA'S National Systems targeted in EPA's Reinventing Environmental Information (REI) Action Plan
AIRS-AFS
AIRS-
AQS
BRS
CERCLIS
EF
NCDB
DOCKET
PCS
RCRIS
RMP*Info
SDWIS
STORET
TRIS
Aerometric Information Retrieval
System/AIRS Facility Subsystem
Aerometric Information Retrieval
System/Air Quality Subsystem
Biennial Reporting System
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
Envirofacts Data Warehouse
National Compliance Database
Enforcement Docket
Permit Compliance System
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Information System
CAA 1 1 2(r) Risk Management
Plan Information System
Safe Drinking Water Information
System
Water Quality Information System
(Storage and Retrieval of U.S.
Waterways Parametric Data)
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
System
Emissions estimates, compliance data, and administrative information on Title V permits
of stationary sources
Monitoring data of ambient air levels of criteria pollutants
Hazardous waste generation and management information from large quantity generators
and treatment, storage and disposal facilities
Tracking system on hazardous waste site assessments, remediau'ons, and enforcement
actions
A warehouse that allows single point access to eight environmental databases,
integrating database tools, and spatial data information
Tracking system for the Pesticides and Toxic Substances Compliance and Enforcement
Program
Tracking system for civil judicial and administrative enforcement cases under all
environmental statutes
Discharge monitoring, inspection, compliance, enforcement, and permit information on
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities
Tracking system for permits, closure status, compliance, and cleanup activities of
hazardous waste handlers
System under development for tracking and making available information from Risk
Management Plans submitted under the Clean Air Act
Type of system, population served, water source, violations of drinking water standards,
enforcement actions, and sampling results of public water systems
Information on aquatic organisms, stream flow, and water quality of U.S. waterways
Information on the releases of pollutants to the environment and other waste
management activities for facilities required to report to the Toxics Release Inventory
CAA
CAA
RCRA
CERCLA
FIFRA,
TSCA,
EPCRA,
AHERA
All environ-
mental laws
CWA
RCRA
CAA
SDWA
Various,
esp. CWA
EPCRA
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report specifically focuses on the environmental pollutant reporting data contained in the 13
national systems, and whether State agencies, EPA Regional offices, or EPA Headquarters are
the primary collecting organizations for these data. For purposes of this environmental
analysis, pollutant reporting data are defined as information on pollutant releases to the
environment (e.g., air emissions, water discharges), hazardous waste management, and
ambient levels of pollutants. Where possible, the analysis has included the quantification of
data collection, e.g., the number of 1998 discharge monitoring reports in the Permit Compliance
System initially collected by State agencies versus EPA Regional offices. Given the differences
in the purposes and contents of the national systems, the type of quantitative analysis varied from
one system to the other.
Although other types of information, e.g., permit tracking, compliance data, and enforcement
actions, are contained in many of the national systems,' the scope of the study was limited, for a
number of reasons, to environmental data. First, as stated in the Preliminary Report on EPA's
Data Gaps Strategy, sound environmental information about pollutant emissions and their
contribution to ambient pollutant levels is "at the heart of performance-based environmental
protection".4 The second reason is that the task of analyzing and quantifying other types of
information contained in some of the national systems databases, as well as identifying the
primary agency responsible for the information (e.g., State versus EPA enforcement actions), is
quite complex and would have extended the time frame for this study significantly. Based upon
the above considerations, the initial focus of the study targeted environmental reporting data
contained in REI's 13 national data systems.
Examination of the 13 national systems revealed that a number of them were not appropriate for
inclusion in this particular study because they contain little or no environmental pollutant
emission, discharge, release, or ambient level monitoring data (Table 1). For this reason,
CERCLIS, NCDB, DOCKET, and RCRIS were not included in the analysis. In addition,
Envirofacts was excluded given that it is a data warehouse that allows users to have a single
point of access to eight data systems, seven of which are on REI's list of 13 national systems:
AIRS/AFS, BRS, CERCLIS, GIGS (Grants Information and Control System, which is not on
REI's list), PCS, RCRIS, SDWIS, and TRIS.5 The environmental pollutant data that is accessed
via Envirofacts is duplicative of the data in the seven national systems. The last system excluded
from the study was RMP*Info which is still under development. Based upon the above
considerations, the following seven national systems were included in the analysis:
'Preliminary Report on EPA's Data Gaps Strategy, Center for Environmental Information and Statistics, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December 14, 1998, p.3.
5It should be noted that the public does not have access via Envirofacts to the complete set of information contained
in some of the databases, but rather to a subset of information in each. For example, confidential enforcement
information is not available. In other cases, the full set of raw data may not be available, but the summary data are.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems 5
-------
INTRODUCTION
Aerometric Information Retrieval System/AIRS Facility Subsystem (AIRS/AFS)
Aerometric Information Retrieval System/Air Quality Subsystem (AIRS/AQS)
Biennial Reporting System (BRS);
Pennit Compliance System (PCS);
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS);
Water Quality Information System (STORET);
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS).
As mentioned previously, other types of information, e.g., permit tracking, compliance data, and
enforcement actions, are contained in many of the 13 national systems, and this is true for several
of the systems included in this report. However, only environmental pollutant reporting data,
e.g., pollutant releases, hazardous waste, and ambient pollutant levels, contained in the seven
systems were examined for purposes of this preliminary study. The information in each of the 13
national systems is described in Table 1, and, in the case of the seven systems included in this
analysis, the types of information they contain are further characterized in the relevant sections of
this report.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
AIRS/AFS
AEROMETRIC INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (AIRS)/
AIRS FACILITY SUBSYSTEM (AFS)6
The AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS) stores three types of information on air pollution point
sources, also known as stationary sources (i.e., plants/facilities):
emissions data on criteria air pollutants;
compliance data; and
tracking of administrative information for Title V permits.
The data in AFS have been submitted by the State and local air agencies. Information from other
groups can be stored in AFS, but this has not occurred to any significant degree. Basically, AFS
is considered a "State" database. Given the focus of this report on the collection of
environmental pollutant reporting data, the following analysis addresses the air emissions data in
AFS.
Under State Implementation Plans (SIPs), facilities are required to report air emissions to their
appropriate State or local air agency. State and local air agencies are required under Clean Air
Act regulations to report annually to EPA the emissions estimates primarily for large stationary
sources, i.e., those facilities emitting criteria pollutants above a specified threshold. In addition,
States are also required to submit emissions data for facilities in nonattainment areas. These
emissions data are entered into the AFS database. Although not required to do so, State and local
air agencies often enter into AFS emission estimates for small stationary sources as well. The
criteria pollutant emission thresholds (tons/year) used for designating whether a facility is a large
source are the following: 100 tons per year for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)7, total participate matter (PT), particulate matter <10jum
(PM,0); 1,000 tons per year for carbon monoxide (CO); and five tons per year for lead (Pb).89
Emissions data in AFS cover not only plants/facilities, but their components as well: "stacks, the
points at which emissions are introduced into the atmosphere; points, the emission point or
process within a plant that produces the pollutant emissions; and segments, which are
components of the processes that produce emissions."10 Emission estimates are usually
Information in this section is based upon several U.S. EPA web sites, as noted throughout the text, and on various
communications (voice, fax, email) from Ed Lillis, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information
Transfer and Program Integration Division, February and March, 1999.
7VOCs are not criteria pollutants, but are precursors of the criteria pollutant ozone (03).
shttp:/Avww.epa.gov/airs/afo.html
*In certain areas, e.g., nonattainment, the emissions thresholds for designating large sources may vary from those
listed.
lฐhttp://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/airs/airsover.html
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data in EPA's National Systems ;
-------
AIRS/AFS
calculated for each segment of a point process and then totaled at the point and plant level.11
Therefore, an emission estimate for a particular criteria pollutant for a plant is potentially based
upon the summation of numerous other emissions estimates, all of which are contained in AFS.
The air emission reports that State and local air agencies receive from facilities can vary in
format as well as content. For example, some States may require for their own purposes a
facility to submit additional information, over and above what the State is required to submit to
EPA. States must process their data into a format specific for AFS. They enter emissions data
electronically into AFS either by submitting batch files to the EPA mainframe computer or by
submitting the information online via formatted screens for data entry. In both cases there is a
data validation process before the data are added to the AFS database.12 Approximately 15-20
agencies are currently using AFS as their only emissions data system. (Figure 1)
Figure 1. Data Flow into AFS
FACILITIES
Air Emissions Reports
w
STATE/
LOCAL AIR
AGENCIES
w
EPA
AFS
AFS contains records dating from the mid 1980's13 and includes approximately 175,000 different
sources over the lifetime of the database, with emissions data on approximately 90,000 sources
and compliance data on 156,000. State and local air agencies, as noted previously, submit
emissions data on an annual basis; compliance data is submitted by States on a quarterly basis.
The size of the AFS database, which is a mainframe (ADABASE), is estimated to be 10
gigabytes.
Between 1990 and 1996, State and local air agencies collected and electronically entered into
AFS emissions estimates for approximately 21,000 to 39,000 facilities annually.14-15 Of these, the
number of facilities with emissions >100 tons per year (tpy) of any criteria pollutant ranged from
approximately 4,500 to 8,200.16 The number of facilities for which data are submitted differs
1 lhttp:/fyvww.epa.gov/airs/afs.html
l*http:/Avww.epa.gov/airs/afs.html
1JThere is a small number of records dating back to the 1970's.
14 As noted, other groups may store relatively small amounts of data in AFS and, therefore, the number of sources
cited here is for all sources. However, the number of sources from which States received data as well as the amount
of data they received far outweighs anything stored by other groups.
"Currently, 1996 is the last year with completed data.
"The search performed on AFS was done in an attempt to get an approximation of the number of large sources in
the database. As indicated previously, the definition of "large" is somewhat more complicated.
8
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
AIRS/AFS
from annually for a number of reasons. For example, there are some years when, for
programmatic reasons, there is an increased emphasis on the need for submittal of a
comprehensive emissions inventory, e.g., to implement the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
(Table 2 and Figure 2)
Table 2. Aerometric Information Retrieval System - AIRS Facility Subsystem (AFS)
Number of Sources with Emissions Data Submitted to State/Local Air Agencies17
Reporting Year
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Sources
All sources
with emissions
39,151
8,194
21,290
4,527
24,660
4,505
33,272
5,876
31,450
4,856
33,507
4,702
34,204
5,477
> 100 tons per year of
criteria pollutant
Total Number of Historical Sources (Plants/Facilities) in AFS: - 90.000
Source: Data query information provided by Ed Lillis, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Information Transfer and Program Integration Division. 2 March 1999.
1 As noted, other groups may store relatively small amounts of data in AFS and, therefore, the number of sources
cited here is for all sources. However, the number of sources from which States received data as well as the amount
of data they received far outweighs anything stored by other groups.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems ~~9
-------
AIRS/AFS
Figure 2. AFS - Number of Stationary Sources with Emissions Data Submitted to
State/Local Air Agencies13
AFS - Stationary Sources
with Data Submitted to State/Local Air Agencies
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
1990 1991
1992 1993 1994
Reporting Year
1995 1996
All sources
Sources-emissions >100 tpy crit pollutant
10
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
. AIRS/AQS
AEROMETRIC BVFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (AIRS)/
AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM (AQS)18
AQS contains ambient monitoring data for criteria pollutants that all State and local air agencies
are required to collect under the Clean Air Act regulations. The criteria pollutants are carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, paniculate matter
-------
AIRS/AQS
Approximately 10,000 monitors with sampling results for criteria pollutants have been stored in
AQS over its lifetime, some of them dating back to the 1950's. In 1998 State and local air
agencies collected data from 4,918 active monitors, including 531 for carbon monoxide, 315 for
lead, 425 for nitrogen dioxide, 1,111 for ozone, 667 for sulfur dioxide, 1,521 for paniculate
matter <10/um, 20 for paniculate matter <2.5//m, and 328 for total suspended particulates.20'21
(Table 3 and Figure 4)
Table 3. Aerometric Information
Retrieval System - Air Quality
Subsystem (AQS)
Number of Monitors Operated by State/
Local Air Agencies20
Total Number of Monitors - 10,000
(Since the 1950's)
Active Monitor Count - 1998
Total 4,918
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 531
Lead(Pb) 315
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOj) 425
Ozone (O3) 1,111
Sulfur Dioxide (SOj) 667
Paniculate Matter 10 (PM10) 1,521
Paniculate Matter 2.5 (PM2J) 20
Total Suspended Particulates (TSPs) 328
Source: Data query information provided by
Ed Lillis, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Information Transfer and Program
Integration Division. 24 February 1999.
Figure 4. AQS - Number of Monitors Operated
by State/Local Air Agencies in 199820
AQS -1998 Active Monitor Count
Operated by State/Local Air Agencies
,600! -OH?}
Total Monitor Count 4,918
Criteria Pollutants
CO g Pb I NO2
03 HI S02 ฃ3 PM10
PM2.5 M TSPs
2{VTotal suspended particulates (TSPs) are no longer a criteria pollutant, but some States still measure TSPs.
21As noted, AQS also contains a very minimal amount of monitoring data collected by others (probably less than one
percent) and, therefore, these numbers include those monitors as well.
12
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data in EPA's National Systems
-------
BUS
BIENNIAL REPORTING SYSTEM (BRS)
Hazardous waste handlers who generate waste above a certain threshold or who treat, store or
dispose of such waste are required to submit biennial hazardous waste reports on their activities
in accordance with Sections 3002 and 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). These large quantity generators (LQGs) and treatment, storage and disposal (TSD)
facilities submit their biennial reports either to their State agency, if it is so authorized, or to the
EPA Regional Office by March 1st of every even numbered year for the previous reporting year,
e.g., March 1, 1998, for the reporting year 1997. There is a specific federal hazardous waste
report, but some States have their own versions, require additional information, or require
reporting on an annual basis (e.g., Texas). If so, these States must still collect and submit the
relevant federally required information to EPA.
Most States that collect the hazardous waste reports enter the data into an electronic database and
then send the biennial report information in electronic form to their EPA Regional office.22 A
few (Guam, Hawaii, and Navajo Nations)23, however, collect the reports, passing them on in hard
copy to the EPA Regional office, which then enters the information into an electronic database.
Also, there are some States which do not collect the hazardous waste reports at all (Alaska, Iowa,
Michigan24, Trust Territories, and Virgin Islands)25, in which case, the facilities in those States
send their reports directly to the appropriate EPA Regional office, which then enters the data into
the electronic database. The Regional offices, in turn, send the electronic reporting information
to EPA HQ for entry into the Biennial Reporting System database. (Figure 5)
Figures. Data Flow into BRS
HAZARDOUS WASTE HANDLERS
LQGs
TSD Facilities
Hazardous Waste Reports
^Personal Communication from Michael Hillard, Office of Solid Waste, Communications, Information, and
Resources Management Division, 12 February 1999.
^Personal Communication from Dina Villari, Office of Solid Waste, Communications, Information, and Resources
Management Division, 19 and 22 February 1999.
"Beginning in 1999, Michigan will collect the Hazardous Waste Reports.
"Personal Communication from Dina Villari, Office of Solid Waste, Communications, Information, and Resources
Management Division, 19 and 22 February 1999.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
13
-------
BflS
A hazardous waste handler may be both a LQG and a TSD facility and, as such, files only one
hazardous waste report. The Biennial Report consists of several forms, the submittal of each
being dependent on the activities of the waste handler. EPA's The National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 1995 Data}26 reports separately the number of the LQGs and
the TSD facilities that submitted hazardous waste reports, not the total number of waste handlers.
However, from a brief analysis of the BRS ASCII flat files27, it appears that the total number of
waste handlers reporting was 21,028 with 1,828 of those reporting as both LQGs and TSD
facilities. Based on the 1995 data, 95.4% (19,917) of the biennial reports from LQGs and 92.3%
(1,831) from TSD facilities were submitted to State agencies, accounting for over 200 million
pounds of hazardous waste generated and approximately 194 million pounds managed. EPA
Regional offices received 4.6% of the reports submitted by LQGs and 7.7% from TSD
facilities.28 (Table 4 and Figure 6)
Table 4. BRS - 1995 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report
Collecting
Agency
States
EPA
Total
Large Quantity
Generators
Number Percent
19,917 95.4
956 4.6
20,873 100.0
Hazardous Waste
Generated
Tons Percent
200,584,892 93.7
13,507,613 6.3
214,092,505 100.0
TSD Facilities
Number Percent
1.831 92.3
152 7.7
1.983 100.0
Hazardous Waste
Managed
Tons Percent
193,732,444 93.0
14,539,588 7.0
208,272,032 100.0
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report
(Based on 1995 Data). 1997.
"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 1995
Data), 1997.
*http://uniw.epa.gov/epaoswer/ha&ปaste/data/brs95.htm
MU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on 1995
Data), 1997.
14
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data in EPA's National Systems
-------
BRS
Figure 6. BRS -1995 Biennial Reports Submitted by Large Quantity Generators and TSD
Faculties
BRS -1995 Biennial Reports
Filed by Generators and TSD Facilities
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Large Quantity Generators TSD Facilities
Primary Collection Authority
States EPA
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
15
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
16 Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
PCS
PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM (PCS)
Under the Clean Water Act, facilities that have been granted permits to discharge wastewater
under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) submit monitoring reports
to EPA or the authorized States. Specifically, it contains data in the following areas:
facility characteristics;
permit conditions;
discharge monitoring information;
inspections;
compliance schedules; and
enforcement actions.29
Both major and minor facilities are tracked in PCS, a facility's classification being based on a
number of parameters, including amount of discharge per day, wastewater sources, and
population affected by discharge.30 Given the focus of this report on the collection of
environmental pollutant reporting data, the following analysis addresses the discharge monitoring
data in PCS.
As required in a facility's permit, monitoring results of a facility's discharges are submitted in
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), either to the relevant State agency, if it has been
authorized/delegated by EPA, or to the appropriate EPA Regional office if the State is not
authorized.31-32-33 The DMRs from major facilities are required to be entered into PCS, but those
ฎhttp:/Avww.epa.gov/ow/compeiuUum/permit.htm
xhttp://www.epa.gov/ow/compendium/permit.htm
"States without NPDES permit authority: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Pacific Territories (including American Samoa and Guam), and Federal
Indian Reservations, http://www.epa/gov/awm/faq.htm
31A few States are authorized for NPDES permits for all facilities except federal facilities (Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Vermont, Virgin Islands, and Washington). In these States, all facilities except federal ones, send their
DMRs to the State agency, while federal facilities send their DMRs to the EPA Regional office. Personal
communication from Jan Pickrel and Howard Rubin, Office of Wastewater Management, Permits Division, 18
February 1999.
"Oklahoma and Texas have partial NPDES permitting authority. In these States, separate agencies oversee
different categories of facilities and not all of theses agencies applied for NPDES permitting authority. For
example, in Texas the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) received authorization
September 1998 to issue NPDES permits. However, the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees oil, gas, and
mineral exploration and production facilities, did not apply for NPDES approval. Therefore, the facilities under
TNRCC jurisdiction send then- DMRs to TNRCC, but the oil, gas, and mineral exploration and production facilities
in Texas send theirs to EPA Region VI. Personal communication from Paulette Johnsey, Water Quality Protection
Division, NPDES Permit Branch, EPA Region VI, 19 March 1999.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems 17
-------
PCS
from minor facilities are not, although some States and Regional offices enter them anyway.34-33
A DMR is filed for every pipe/outfall that is required to be monitored at a facility and the
frequency of monitoring, as well as the parameters to be monitored at each outfall, are specified
in the permit. It is common for monthly monitoring to be required. For example, a facility with
one outfall that is required to file a monthly discharge monitoring report, files 12 reports over the
course of a year. If the facility has eight outfalls, all of which require monthly monitoring, then
the facility would file 96 DMRs per year.
Facilities submit DMRs in hard copy to the appropriate authority, i.e., a delegated State agency or
an EPA Regional office. State agencies and the EPA Regional offices enter the data either online
directly into PCS or send batch files for processing into PCS.36 (Figure 7.)
Figure 7. Data Flow into PCS
FACILITIES
Discharge Monitoring Reports
Currently (March 1999), there are 59,190 NPDES permitted facilities, 6,702 of which are defined
as major, 52,488 as minor. State agencies are responsible for collecting DMRs for approximately
91% (6,071) of the major facilities, 97% (51,023) of the minors, and 96% (57,094) of all NPDES
permitted facilities. EPA Regional offices collect the DMRs for approximately 9% (631) of the
major facilities, 3% (1,465) of the minors, and 4% (2096) of all permitted facilities.37-38 (Table 5
and Figure 8)
"Personal communication from Lucy Reed, Office of Compliance, Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data
Division, 9 February 1999.
"Personal communication from Jan Pickrel and Howard Rubin, Office of Wastewater Management, Permits
Division, 18 February 1999.
Personal communication from Lucy Reed, Office of Compliance, Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data
Division, 19 March 1999.
"Data used to derive these numbers were supplied by Jim Corpuz, Office of Compliance, Enforcement Planning,
Targeting, and Data Division, March 1999. Genera] Permits are not included in these numbers.
"The number of facilities that send their DMRs to a State agency is actually smaller than that stated here (and the
number of those that send DMRs to an EPA Regional office is somewhat larger). Federal Indian Reservation
facilities, which send their DMRs to EPA Regional offices, could not be easily identified by a simple search of PCS
and, therefore, are included in the numbers of facilities in those States that collect DMRs from NPDES permitted
facilities. Also, the facilities in Oklahoma and Texas that send DMRs to State agencies versus EPA Region VI have
not been separated and all facilities are included in the count for States.
16
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
PCS
Table 5. NPDES Permitted Facilities in PCS and Discharge Monitoring Report
Collection
DMR Collecting
Agency
States
EPA
Total
Major Facilities
Number Percent
6,071 90.6
631 9.4
6.702 100.0
Minor Facilities
Number Percent
51,023 97.2
1,465 2.8
52.488 100.0
Total Facilities
Number Percent
57,094 96.5
2,096 3.5
59.190 100.0
Source: Data used to derive the numbers in this table were supplied by Jim Coipuz, Office of Compliance,
Enforcement Planning. Tareetine. and Data Division. March 1999.
Figure 8. NPDES Permitted Facilities in PCS and Primary DMR Collection Authorities
NPDES Facilities in PCS
Major Facnittea Minor Facilities Total Facilities
Primeiy Discharge Monitoring Report Collection Authority
EPA
Of the 419,739 DMRs reported in 1998 and subsequently entered in PCS, approximately 48%
(202,632) were from major facilities. As noted previously, these are required to be entered into
PCS. Approximately 83% (169,040) of the DMRs from major facilities had been collected and
entered by State agencies, 17% (33,592) by EPA Regional offices. DMRs from minor facilities
are not required to be entered in PCS, but States and EPA Regions often do include them in the
database. In fact, 52% (217,107) of all 1998 DMRs in PCS were from minor facilities.39 Of the
DMRs from minor facilities, approximately 94% (204,729) were collected and entered by State
agencies, 6% (12,378) by EPA Regional offices.
3*The number of minor facilities that had submitted these DMRs could not be easily determined by a simple query of
the PCS database.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
19
-------
PCS
Of the total number of 1998 DMRs entered into PCS, State agencies accounted for 89% and
EPA Regional offices for 11%."ฐ (Table 6 and Figure 9)
Table 6. 1998 DMRs in PCS from NPDES Facilities
DMR Collecting
Agency
States
EPA
Total
DMRs from Major
Facilities in 1998
Number Percent
169,040 83.4
33,592 16.6
202,632 100.0
DMRs from Minor
Facilities in 1998
Number Percent
204,729 94.3
12,378 5.7
217,107 100.0
Total DMRs in PCS
1998
Number Percent
373,769 89.0
45,970 11.0
419,739 100.0
Source: Data used to derive the numbers in this table were supplied by Jim Corpuz, Office of Compliance,
Enforcement Planning. Targeting, and Data Division, March 1999.
Figure 9. Collection of 1998 DMRs in PCS from NPDES Facilities
1998 DMRs in PCS
From Major and Minor Facffittes
Major Faculties Minor Faculties
Primary Collecting Agency
~ EPA
number of DMRs sent to State agencies is probably smaller than that stated (and the number sent to EPA
Regional offices somewhat larger). Federal Indian Reservation facilities send their DMRs to EPA Regional offices,
but these could not be easily identified by a simple search of PCS and, therefore, DMRs from such facilities in
authorized States are included in the number of DMRs sent to State agencies. Also, the DMRs from facilities in
Oklahoma that are sent to the State agency versus EPA Region VI have not been separated and are included in the
count for States. Because Texas did not receive partial NPDES permitting authority until September 1998, all
DMRs from Texas facilities are included in the number sent to EPA Regions.
20
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
SOWS/FED
SAFE DRINKING WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM
(SDWIS/FED)
The Safe Drinking Water Information System at the federal level (SDWIS/FED) contains
information on public water systems (PWSs), including type of water system; size of population
served; sources of water; monitoring and reporting violations; monitoring and sampling results
indicating violations of Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards and mandated treatment
techniques; enforcement actions; and sampling results.41 The sampling results that are included
in SDWIS are of two types: 1) currently, only those sampling results that exceed the MCL
standards or indicate violations of mandated treatment techniques, and 2) the sampling results for
unregulated contaminants that some PWSs are required to monitor.42 Given the focus of this
report on the collection of environmental pollutant reporting data, the following analysis
addresses only the monitoring data in SDWIS.
PWSs are required to collect samples under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and send
them to a certified laboratory for analysis. The analytical results are sent by the PWS or the
certified lab to either the appropriate State agency, if the State has primacy or a cooperative
agreement with EPA, or. if the PWS is not located in such a State, to the EPA Regional office.
All States, except Wyoming and Tribal water systems, have primacy and collect monitoring
information from PWSs.43
The State agencies, and EPA Regions (in the case of Wyoming and Tribal water systems), are
required to send quarterly reports on new violations, new enforcement actions, and new variances
or exemptions involving PWSs.44 These reports are sent in an electronic file format to EPA
Headquarters where they are processed and entered into SDWIS on a quarterly basis; however,
EPA Regional offices may review the reports before they are entered into the database.45 It
should be noted that'the reports sent by die State agencies or EPA Regions do not include all the
sampling/monitoring data collected by PWSs, but only those mentioned above (i.e., sampling
results indicating violations of MCL standards and mandated treatment techniques, and results
for unregulated contaminants). (Figure 10)
4lhttp://www .epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/datab/sfed.html
"Personal communication from Jeff Sexton, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Implementation and
Assistance Division, 25 February 1999.
"Ibid, 10 February and 23 March 1999.
"40CFR 142.15
""Personal communication from Jeff Sexton, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Implementation and
Assistance Division, 10 February 1999.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems 2?
-------
SDWIS/FED
Figure 10. Data Flow into SDWIS/FED
PUBLIC
WATER
SYSTEMS
Water
Samples
Sampling
Results
SDWIS contains 19 years of data and has acquired approximately five million records over a 10
year period.46 As of January 1999, there were 170,429 public water systems being tracked in
SDWIS. Of these, 99% (168,727) report their monitoring results to State agencies, 1.0% (1,702)
to the EPA Regional offices.47 (Table 7 and Figure 11)
Table 7. Number of Public Water
Systems in SDWIS/FED, January 1999
Collecting
Agency for Number of
Sampling Data Systems
Percent
States
EPA
Total
168,727
1,702
170,429
99.0
1.0
100.0
Source: Data supplied by Jeff Sexton, Office of
Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Implementation and Assistance Division, 10 and
25 February 1999. _
Figure 11. Public Water Systems in
SDWIS/FED and Primary Collecting
Agencies
SDWIS/FED - Public Water Systems
Collection of Sampling Data
Primary Collecting Agency
EPA
"Personal communication from Jeff Sexton, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Implementation and
Assistance Division, 10 and 25 February 1999.
"Ibid., 23 March 1999.
22 Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
STORET
WATER QUALITY INFORMATION SYSTEM (STORET -
STOrage and RETrieval of U.S. Waterways Parametric Data)
The Water Quality Information System (STORET - STOrage and RETrieval of U.S. Waterways
Parametric Data) was first developed by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1964 for the purpose
of collecting and making available information on the water quality of U.S. waterways. Two
years later, STORET moved to the Department of the Interior where it remained until 1970,
when EPA became responsible for the system. It is currently maintained by EPA's Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (in the Office of Water).48
Most STORET information has been collected since 1975, however, some records date back to
1899. There are three components of STORET:
Biological System (BIOS) - information on aquatic organisms in U.S. waterways;49
Daily Flow System (DPS) - stream flow information from gaging stations belonging to
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS);50 and
Water Quality System (WQS) - chemical and physical information obtained during
monitoring of U.S. waterways.51
About 800 organizations have stored information in STORET over the years.52 Some of the data
stored in STORET are required to be entered in the system (e.g., monitoring data collected under
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act), while in other cases, the system has been used voluntarily
by organizations as a utility system.53
With the exception of the USGS-owned DPS component of STORET which is not being
included in the newer version of STORET, State organizations own approximately 90% of the
information in the database, and collect and submit about 63% of the data that they are
responsible for.54-55 USGS, under contract to various States, collects and submits the remaining
"Personal communication from Bob King, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, 23 March 1999.
^http:/Avww. epa. gov/ow/compendium/bios.htm
xhttp://vww. ejm.gov/ow/compendium/dfs.htm
i]http://www.epa.gov/ow/comperutium/wqs.htm
S1http:ffwww. epa. gov/ow/compendium/legacy. htm
53Personal communication from Bob King, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, 1 March 1999.
"Ibid.
S5Personal communication from Joyce Boyd, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, 14 April 1999.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems 23
-------
STORET
State-owned data.56 Organizations submit their data electronically to EPA in batch files, which
are then processed and entered into STORET. (Figure 12)
Figure 12. Data Flow into STORET
STATES
USGS
OTHER AGENCIES
EPA
STORET
Currently, STORET is approximately 20 gigabytes in a compressed format size; it is being
converted to ORACLE, a relational database, and is expected to become seven to 10 fold larger
when uncompressed.57
STORET's Water Quality System, which is the component used most by organizations, States
and tribes, is tracked statistically by EPA. The following analysis, therefore, only pertains to
WQS. The total number of sampling stations (or sites) historically stored in STORET/WQS has
been increasing over the years and as of 27 December 1998, there were 843,739 stations.58 Many
of these stations are no longer active for numerous reasons, but their data are still available.
(Table 8 and Figure 13)
Table 8. STORET/WQS - Stations Stored
over Lifetime of System
As of:
Total Number of Stations
December 28, 1996
December 26,1997
818,211
837,560December27,
1998843,739
Source: Data supplied by Joyce Boyd, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment arid
Watershed Protection Division, 19 March 1999.
"Personal communication from Bob King, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, 1 March 1999.
"Ibid
^'Personal communication from Joyce Boyd, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, 19 March 1999.
24
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
STORET
Figure 13. Total Number of Sampling
Stations Stored over Lifetime of
STORET/WQS
STORET/WQS - Stations
Total Number
As of Dec 1996
As of Dec 1998
As of Dec 1997
In 1997, there were 174,200 active sampling stations which were associated with approximately
6.8 million sampling transactions; in 1998, there were fewer active stations (119,340), but a
greater number of parametric transactions, 7.3 million in total.59 (Parametric transactions may
include new sampling results, corrections of older data, or occasionally a complete overwrite of a
group of existing data with only some changes to the existing data.) (Table 9 and Figures 14 and
15)
Table 9. STORET/WQS - Annual Activity
Year
Number of
Active Stations
Parametric
Transactions
1997
1998
174,200
119.340
6,819,710
7,324,120
Source: Data supplied by Joyce Boyd, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division. 2 and 18 March 1999.
'"Personal communication from Joyce Boyd, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, 2 and 18 March 1999.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
25
-------
STQRET
Figure 14. Number of Annually
Active Stations in STORET/WQS
STORET/WQS - Active Stations
Number per Year
Year
1997
1998
Figure 15. Number of Annual Parametric
Transactions in STORET/WQS
STORET/WQS - Parametric Transactions
Number per Year
7.000.000
6.000.000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000.000
2,000.000
1,000,000
0
Year
1997
1998
26
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data in EPA's National Systems
-------
TRIS
TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INVENTORY SYSTEM (TRIS)
The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System (TRIS) is a database which contains the
information submitted by facilities under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). A facility that is required to report must submit
either a Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Form R or, if the facility did not exceed certain
threshold requirements, a Form A for each TRI listed chemical. For 1996, the last year for which
TRI data from EPA are currently available60, the list included over 600 chemicals and 28
chemical categories.
TRI Form R contains detailed information on a facility's chemical releases to the environment, as
well as its waste management activities, for those chemicals on the TRI list. TRI Form A was
implemented beginning in 1995 for purposes of reducing reporting burdens for those facilities
with relatively low quantities of reportable amounts of TRI chemicals. The form is basically a
certification statement from the facility stating that the facility has met the necessary
requirements for reporting the particular TRI chemical on Form A.
Facilities are required under federal regulations61 to submit copies (either in paper copy or in
magnetic media) of their TRI Forms both to the appropriate State Agency and to EPA
Headquarters by July 1 of each year for the previous reporting year.62 Information from the
reporting forms is entered into the TRIS database only by EPA Headquarters, not by State
agencies.63 (Figure 16)
Figure 16. Data Flow into TRIS
FACILITIES
TRI Form Rs
TRI Form As
^TRl data for 1997 is expected to be available from U.S. EPA in May 1999.
"40 CFR 372.27{d) and 372.30(a)
MU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions.
Revised 1997 Version. EPA745-K-98-001,1998.
"Personal communication from Chi Tran, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management
Division, 2 February 1999.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data in EPA's National Systems
27
-------
TfWS
In 1996 State Agencies and EPA both collected a total of 71,381 TRI Form Rs and Form As from 21,626
facilities. The information reported on these forms included details on the releases of 2.4 billion pounds
of TRI chemicals as well as other types of waste management (recycling, energy recovery, or treatment)
of 20.9 billion pounds of such chemicals.64 (Table 10 and Figure 17)
Table 10. 1996 TRI Reporting in TRIS
FormRs
Form As
Total Forms
Total Facilities
Total On- and Off-site
Releases (Ibs)
Other On- and Off-site Waste
Management (Ibs)
64,147
7,234
71,381
21,626
2,433,506,582
20,901,063,788
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 7996
Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release - Ten
Years of Public Right-to-Know. Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, EPA 745-R-98-005,1998.
Figure 17. 1996 TRI Reporting in TRIS
TRIS-1996 TRI Reporting
TRI Forms and Facilities
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Reported to States and EPA
Form Rs Form As
Total Forms Total Facilities
MU.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 7996 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release - Ten Years of
Public Right-to-Know. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA 745-R-98-005, 1998.
28
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
The analysis presented in this report indicates that State environmental agencies are responsible
for the initial collection and subsequent submission to EPA of approximately 83% or more of the
.._ . .* *.. . * JซB J* . * . * ซ .
analyzed in this study: AFS, AQS, BRS, PCS, and SDWIS. In the case of STORET (with the
exception of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Daily Flow System component, which is not
being included in the newer version of the database), States own approximately 90% of the
information in the database, and collect and submit about 63% of the data themselves. USGS,
under contract to various States, collects and submits the remaining State-owned data. Regarding
TRIS, States are collecting 100% of the same information that is contained in mis database, but
they do not subsequently submit it to EPA or enter it into the system. This is due to the fact that
facilities are required by regulation to report their TRI emissions to both EPA Headquarters
(where it is entered into the national database) as well as the relevant State agency.
These findings make it clear that the States currently play a primary role in the collection of
environmental pollutant reporting data in the REI national databases. They further support the
need for continued building of a strong partnership between the States and EPA, especially as the
partnership moves toward a more performance-based environmental management system.
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data in EPA's National Systems 29
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
30 Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data in EPA's National Systems
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following individuals were key in contributing basic information about the national data
systems reviewed in this report as well as providing data on which the quantitative analyses were
based. In addition, all the individuals cited in this report participated in the review of the section
relevant to the information they provided. Their cooperation and efforts are greatly appreciated.
AEROMETRIC INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEM (AIRS): AIRS FACILITY
SUBSYSTEM (AFS) AND AIR QUALITY SUBSYSTEM (AQS)
Ed Lillis Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Information
Transfer and Program Integration Division
BIENNIAL REPORTING SYSTEM (BRS)
Michael Hillard Office of Solid Waste; Communications, Information, and
Resources Management Division
Mary Villarreal Waste, Pesticides, and Toxics Division; Program Management
Branch; EPA Region V
Dina Villari Office of Solid Waste; Communications, Information, and
Resources Management Division
CAA 112(R) RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN INFORMATION SYSTEM (RMP*Info)
Lisa Jenkins Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY
INFORMATION SYSTEM (CERCLIS)
Patricia Gowland Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Information
Management Center
NATIONAL COMPLIANCE DATA BASE (NCDB)
James Johnson Office of Compliance; Enforcement Planning, Targeting,
and Data Division
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE DOCKET (DOCKET)
Debra Villari Office of Compliance; Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data
Division
PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM (PCS)
Jim Corpuz Office of Compliance; Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data
Division
Paulette Johnsey Water Quality Protection Division; NPDES Permit Branch, EPA
Region VI
Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data in EPA's National Systems 3?
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Jan Pickrel Office of Wastewater Management; Permits Division
Lucy Reed Office of Compliance; Enforcement Planning, Targeting, and Data
Division
Howard Rubin Office of Wastewater Management; Permits Division
REI NATIONAL SYSTEMS BOARD
Ruby Boyd Office of Information Resources Management; Information
Resources Management Planning Division
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY INFORMATION SYSTEM (RCRIS)
Michael Hillard Office of Solid Waste; Communications, Information, and
Resources Management Division
SAFE DRINKING WATER INFORMATION SYSTEM (SDWIS/FED)
Jeff Sexton Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; Implementation and
Assistance Division
WATER QUALITY INFORMATION SYSTEM (STORET - STOrage and RETrieval of U.S.
Waterways Parametric Data)
Joyce Boyd Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division
Robert King Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division
TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE INVENTORY SYSTEM (TRIS)
Chi Tran Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; Information
Management Division
32 Environmental Pollutant Reporting Data In EPA's National Systems
-------
State/EPA Vision and Operating Principles
For Environmental Information Management
"The States and EPA are committed to a partnership to build locally and
nationally accessible, cohesive and coherent environmental information systems
that will ensure that both the public and regulators have access to the information
needed to document environmental performance, understand environmental
conditions, and make sound decisions that ensure environmental protection."
For details and more information, contact EGOS at 202-624-3660 or see http.//www state-epa-info-group.org/Vision/vision.htinl.
------- |