ICIS-NPDES Expanded Steering Committee WORKING DRAFT Additional States' Perspectives as of December 12, 2006

Transcription

1 ICIS-NPDES Expanded Steering Committee WORKING DRAFT Additional States' Perspectives as of December 12, 2006 The following builds on prior recommendations from States, please refer to the August 23, 2006 State Perspectives Update Statement and States' White Paper: Alternative Approaches for States to Provide USEPA with NPDES Information (Revised Draft October 31, 2006) which are attached: 1. States will review RIDE proposal to identify opportunities for further reduction in the number of data elements. ASIWPCA will facilitate these discussions that should conclude no later than January 15, Upon completion of said review States would accept RIDE definition as an aspirational objective to be achieved over time. No commitments would be made with respect to funding or time frames to achieve the objective. There would also be no withholding by US EPA of state grant funds to direct state efforts to this objective. 3. Establishing a specific timeframe (e.g., 2009 target) is not realistic or pragmatic at this time. 4. The national movement to the aspirational objectives identified by US EPA would be established by a budget neutral approach that would govern the federal-state partnership. The annual state work program negotiations would determine what could be done by each state to move towards the national objectives during that period. 5. For facilities without DMRs (e.g. CAFO, Stormwater, etc.) States would prepare annual statistical reports that would characterize performance relative to key issues such as noncompliance or other issues of general national interest consistent with national guidance. 6. For non-direct users the responsible US EPA program would initiate a process that comports with Exchange Network endorsed best practices for information flow development and implementation. 7. Upon final adoption/endorsement of a production-ready schema by the Exchange Network, all non-direct users must publish at a minimum all RIDE data elements that they collect on their Nodes in a schema format that has been validated to be in conformance with the Exchange Network protocols. 8. US EPA and States must re-examine the management information needs and policy statement for the NPDES program at least every five years. 9. US EPA will proceed to draft a revised policy statement for review and discussion with the ICIS-NPDES Expanded Steering Committee at its next meeting in mid- February US EPA should minimize the duplication of effort and burden to the maximum extent practicable for direct and non-direct user states consistent with US EPA initiatives.

2 As of today we (states) believe we have: ICIS NPDES Issues State Perspectives Update Draft August 23, 2006 Temporarily parked the issue of a blanket policy commitment to providing the entire RIDE universe Agreed that if the data exists EPA can have it Acknowledged that existing EPA/state operating agreements and practices do not necessarily cause all the WENDB data to be either currently collected or uploaded into the US EPA information system (PCS) Emphasized the need to developing a systematic approach to examine and assess what steps and resources are required for States to provide the data elements in RIDE or access to them Acknowledged the importance of portraying the national picture on priority issues and concerns for activities associated with implementation of the NPDES program State Priorities: A stable, supportable ICIS-NPDES information system that contains WENDB data elements for the historical facility universe for all authorized state programs A systematic approach to the expansion of the facility universe and data elements that includes the following components: A plan for transition that is consistent with the reasonably foreseeable national budgetary constraints and manageable for authorized states Clear definition of authorized state program responsibilities (identifying expectations for ICIS Direct Users and accessing information in authorized states with independent management information systems, a.k.a. batch) Analysis of data collection gaps (WENDB vs. RIDE) on state by state basis or a representative subset of states Analysis of state workload to provide RIDE Data for Direct Users Analysis of state workload to provide RIDE Data and costs for accessing information in authorized states with independent management information systems, a.k.a. batch. Availability /provision of resources to support the workload identified Where resources are not available consideration of alternate approaches or reconsideration of the level of detail Data elements associated with general permits in RIDE or ICIS should be suspended until such time as a fully automated enrollment and permit administration service is readily available for use by authorized state programs. There is a critical need to improve the portrayal at the national level of emerging issues and concerns regarding activities associated with the implementation of the NPDES program. Despite a flat or declining budget climate there is much that can be done: Identify key issues and concerns Extract available data from state management information systems Work with US EPA to prepare probabilistic forecasts for areas where data coverage is not complete The Exchange Network (ENLC/NOB) should more clearly identify industry best practices for determining production-ready schema and system-to-system communications and provide implementation guidance to states and EPA programs.

3 States White Paper: Alternative Approaches for States to Provide USEPA with NPDES Information DRAFT October 31, INTRODUCTION The Permit Compliance System (PCS) is the official United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) national database for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, in operation since the 1974 without substantial modification. The current requirements for PCS use, either directly or through an interface, are set forth in the Permit Compliance System Policy Statement (1985). US EPA has gone through a multi year, extensive process for identifying data and system design requirements for a modernized PCS, now identified as the Integrated Compliance Information System NPDES (ICIS NPDES). The transition to a new national database of record for the CWA NPDES program requires careful study and thorough planning. Recently, US EPA drafted substantial revisions to the 1985 Policy Statement that raised a number of concerns within state environmental agencies. Many states are concerned about the: Overall increasing burden of maintaining approved State NPDES programs Flat or diminishing resources Significantly increased reporting requirements and facility universe associated primarily with the national database expansion to track programs for wet weather and new types of facilities such as those for Biosolids, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO), Stormwater, Pretreatment, and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO). During the most recent meeting in February 2006 of the Expanded PCS/ICIS Steering Committee there was considerable ambiguity regarding the nature of the data that was deemed appropriate for national reporting and the range of alternatives by which such data could be provided to fulfill US EPA s information needs. Further the discussion at the meeting also revealed that neither US EPA nor the States had quantified (and documented) the costs for data acquisition, data entry and maintenance. The States representatives agreed to develop an initial analysis of these issues (i.e., this white paper) for full committee discussion at the next meeting. The States representatives committed to provide as much detail as possible but primarily they would be elaborating on the most viable alternatives. BACKGROUND IN THE CLEAN WATER ACT As enacted, the Clean Water Act makes a number of declarations of national goals and policy. Two of these are of particular note with respect to issues facing the Expanded PCS/ICIS Steering 1 Please note that this paper is still in development. It reflects our analysis and recommendation as of October 31, 2006 and will be updated when the ASIWPCA survey results are available. 1

4 Committee in reviewing revisions to the 1985 Policy Statement, 101(b) and (f), respectively, state that: (b) It is the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation and enhancement) of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his authority under this Act. It is the policy of Congress that the States manage the construction grant program under this Act and implement the permit programs under sections 402 and 404 of this Act.(emphasis added) It is further the policy of the Congress to support and aid research relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution, and to provide Federal technical and financial aid to State and interstate agencies and municipalities in connection with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution. (f) It is the national policy that to the maximum extent possible the procedures utilized for implementing this Act shall encourage the drastic minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures, and the best use of available manpower and funds, so as to prevent needless duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act established the NPDES program. Permits are issued either by US EPA or by a State that has an approved program that has been delegated NPDES authority under 402(b). The intent of Congress was to turn over to the States, the authority to administer and enforce the NPDES program in its entirety, subject to the provisions of 309 concerning federal enforcement. Subsequent federal regulations were established for the NPDES program that in part, set forth requirements for information obtained or used in the administration of a State program to be available or transmitted to US EPA.(see attached relevant citations) Each State NPDES program is required to maintain a management information system which supports the required compliance evaluation activities. (See Attachment A. ʺCitations Relevant to Information Exchange from the Code of Federal Regulations for State NPDES Programsʺ) US EPA S MANAGERIAL NEEDS Currently State NPDES program reporting varies by type or nature of the facility, discharge, noncompliance or other activity. The primary focus of the current reporting is on the inventory of facilities subject to NPDES permits and exceptions or changes in compliance status, such as instances of noncompliance or enforcement. For certain classes or categories of facilities semi annual or annual statistical summaries are sufficient. US EPA in the Draft ICIS NPDES Policy Statement (December 15, 2005) 2 asserts its desire to be able to rely on ICIS, without the need to manually check with individual states or regions, for accurate, complete, consistent, and timely information on: 2 The Draft ICIS NPDES Policy Statement (December 15, 2005) will be referred to as the Draft Policy for the remainder of paper 2

5 The inventory of facilities subject to NPDES permits. This includes information about these facilities, such as their geographic location. Information about the features and status of the various permits associated with each facility, such as the pipes, limits, effective dates, and monitoring requirements. Compliance monitoring and compliance status information according to 40 CFR For example, the current and historical compliance status of each facility based on self monitoring information (e.g., Discharge Monitoring Reports required under 40 CFR (4) (i)) and government compliance monitoring activities (e.g., inspections). Whether a facility is subject to enforcement, and information about the status and results of the enforcement actions. The environmental and human health impact of these facilities, such as the nature of their discharges and the watersheds. This assertion represents a significant departure from current reporting practice. For many states it creates a duplicate (not substitute) management information system that may complicate interagency decision making and does not represent the best use of available manpower and funds. In addition, the US EPA is also publicly asserting for the first time (with the publication of the RIDE List in the Draft Policy) a significant expansion of information (data) requirements to support such program wide reporting for all facilities. The new RIDE elements, which increase reporting by several orders of magnitude, include programs for wet weather and new types of facilities such as those for Biosolids, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO), Stormwater, Pretreatment, and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO). IMPACTS TO STATES This section of the paper describes the impact of the proposed Draft Policy and quantifies them where feasible. Please note that most of the quantification is described as a range given the diversity of facilities and regulatory requirements among states. The estimates are based on the assumption that data entry in the ICIS NPDES is as efficient as the current PCS. Data Acquisition Implementing new reporting requirements varies depending if a State is currently collecting and managing these data as well the tools for doing so. Some states like Mississippi offer an electronic DMR tool, which reduces the data entry into Mississippiʹs enterprise system. However, their costs for providing this data to US EPA will be significant since they have to re enter the data since the new ICIS NPDES has no electronic interface. 3

6 Some states like Iowa have PC based tools for tracking general permits that provide the information for managing their program but are less data intensive. Other states like Oklahoma and Georgia have paper tools for managing these data so they are only collecting it from a small sub set of their minor permittees. New costs for these states will include data collection and management costs as well as additional data entry costs. For example, Oklahomaʹs current investment for meeting NPDES reporting requirements is $1.8 million (of which US EPA contributes 35 percent) and their projected cost for meeting the new requirements is an additional $1.1 million (which they will have to meet through increased fees to permittees). See Attachment B for details of Oklahoma estimate. Workload -- Reporting Requirements for the NPDES Program (e.g., WENDB Data Elements), increased from 120 in October 1985 to over 200 by June The Draft Policy proposes to increase the number of reported elements to more than The following table delineates the number of data elements that will be required for each type of permit if the Draft Policy is implemented as written. Category of Facility Number of Required RIDE Elements to Be Entered by State for Each Permitted Facility Unpermitted Facility 103 Standard permits w/o CAFO, Biosolids, CSO, SSO 162 Standard permits w SSO 177 Standard permits w CSO 196 Standard permits w Bio-solids 195 CAFO's 63 Master General Permits 34 General permits w/o CAFO, Biosolids, CSO, SSO 101 General permits w SSO 164 General permits w CSO 168 General permits w Bio-solids 134 The universe of facilities covered remained the same between 1985 and 2000 (i.e., states reported on all major facilities and a limited set of minor facilities. The December 2005 Policy proposal expands the universe of reported sources to add entry of data on permits for minors, general permits, and seven new types of facilities. 3 Based on information provided in 1985 Policy Statement (October 31, 1985), John Hovell's memorandum communicating the results of the June 2000 PCS Steering Committee Review (October 10, 2000), and Draft NPDES Policy (December 2005) 4

7 The impact of reporting on the additional universes will be different in each state since the number of these additional facilities varies by state. How significant each of those areas is will depend on the individual state for example, some have a significant number of CAFOs, some do not; some have most facilities covered by general permits, some do not. Estimates range from a three fold to an eight fold increase in reporting requirements. For example Georgia estimates a five fold increase with just the additional minors and Illinois estimates an eight fold increase without wet weather or Biosolids. There are currently individual permits for an estimated 6,300 to 6,700 ʺMajorʺ and 42,000 ʺMinorʺ facilities. 4 However, not all of these new elements will apply. The following examples show a range of new data entry requirements for each of the facilities: Minor municipal and industrial facilities new minimum data for these permits includes DMRs, permit limits and schedules, violations, enforcement actions, and penalties. 5 Entry Estimates range from 9,504 Data Elements in Hawaii to 275,440 Data Elements in New York. General Permits new facilities that are covered by general permits that now require DMR and other info into the system. Entry Estimates range from 25,344 Data Elements in New Jersey to 340,384 Data Elements in Virginia. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) Entry Estimates range from 20 Data Elements in Nebraska to 1,560 Data Elements in Iowa Sanitary Overflows (SSOs) Entry Estimates range from 140 Data Elements in Nebraska to 7,840 Data Elements in Iowa Pretreatment Entry Estimates range from 741 Data Elements in Utah to 3,744 Data Elements in Nebraska Biosolids Entry Estimates range from 1,089 Data Elements in Utah to 4,950 Data Elements in New York Stormwater Non Construction Entry Estimates range from 4,340 Data Elements in Nebraska to 15,400 Data Elements in New York Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Entry Estimates range from Data Elements in Utah to 51,984 Data Elements in Nebraska Please note that States used number of data element identified by US EPA in the Draft Policy to develop their workload estimates. It is likely that their workload estimates would be higher if they used the number of data element numbers presented in the earlier section of this paper. See Attachment C for detailed information about these estimates. State Examples of Cost for Entering DMR Data States have a developed a Return on Investment tool to document the costs and effectiveness of implementing for five flows (including the electronic DMR) on Exchange Network. This tool, which is based on standard ROI models, documents the old and new DMR business processes and then allows each state to apply specific workload factors and costs. States using a portion of this tool can quantify the costs of tracking DMRs under the current PCS Policy and under the Draft Policy. Summary 4 types_coverage_and_emerging_program_areas.pdf - 5 For Georgia this means an increase from approximately 5010 data points each month to 21,090 each month. 5

8 results from three states' application of this tool (Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania) are presented in the table below. Again, please note that the current universe of facilities included in these examples differs from state to state. Also, please note that these are not precise estimates since time did not permit development of all the data necessary to run the model. However, the results of this effort demonstrate that the Draft Policy increases State costs. For example: Pennsylvania is currently reporting only majors but is reviewing 74,400 DMRs while Mississippi and Oklahoma report some minors. Mississippi and Pennsylvania include CAFOs and Oklahoma does not since that program is not delegated. Also, the costs in this table do not reflect costs for the data entry required for facilities not currently in PCS and for the new fields required for all facilities; additional inspections that will be required (wet weather will be inspection driven); and additional enforcement actions generated due to the new SNC designations. In Oklahoma, the costs for these activities will be $1 million for personnel, equipment, and training costs. Nebraska, while it didn't use the model estimates that its costs will increase 125 percent. Example State Costs for Tracking DMRs -- Current versus Draft Policy 6 State Current Policy Facility Universe Draft Policy Facility Universe Current Annual DMRs Draft Annual DMRs Current Costs Draft's Costs Increased Costs Mississippi 2,754 2,754 28,571 28,571 $400,427 $458,780 $58,353 Oklahoma ,545 47,659 $185,161 $645,056 $459,895 Pennsylvania ,400 5,400 55,200 $933,755 $1,423,974 $490,219 PRACTICABLE APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING NATIONAL PRIORITIES A. TAILORING REPORTING TO THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE OF REGULATED FACILITIES Specifically, States recommend that all proposed data elements associated with general permits in RIDE should be suspended until such time as a fully automated enrollment and general permit administration service is readily available for use by authorized state programs who are direct or hybrid users. Over time individual direct or hybrid user states may, at their option, chose to begin enrolling general permittee data elements into ICIS for their own management purposes as available resources allow and state NPDES program management needs evolve. This approach in essence provides authorized state programs the flexibility to address program management needs in a feasible manner that can distinguish between facilities that operate in the classical sense of NPDES, e.g. discharge monitoring report requirements, and those that don t. However, irrespective of states use of ICIS for general permittee data management, all authorized state programs should continue to provide their respective US EPA Regional Administrators with an Annual Noncompliance Report for all nonmajor permittees (including general permittees) as currently required under 40CFR In its annual submission an 6 These are annual costs. 6

9 authorized state program should clearly identify which groups of nonmajor facilities are covered by the report and those facilities where the State is using ICIS for state NPDES program management needs. The state s Annual Noncompliance Report would consist of a statistical report submitted by the Director on nonmajor NPDES permittees indicating the total number reviewed, the number of noncomplying nonmajor permittees, the number of enforcement actions, and number of permit modifications extending compliance deadlines. The statistical information shall be organized to follow the types of noncompliance listed in paragraph (a) of this section (40CFR ). For states using ICIS for certain groups of nonmajor facilities (identified annually by a state) USEPA should be able to extract such statistical reports directly. In the event it is unable to do so, US EPA should notify the Director of the authorized state program. B. USING SUMMARY DATA AND TECHNOLOGY PROVIDED BY THE EXCHANGE NETWORK TO MEET REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Currently delegated states meet their reporting requirements to US EPA through: Direct Entry States use the current PCS as their official NPDES system. (Approximately 14 states.) Batch Transmission States maintain their own NPDES system and must find ways (e.g., IDEF, double data entry, flat file) to get the data from their system into the PCS system. (Approximately 14 states.) A Combination States enter some data directly into PCS and other information into their own system that is batched to US EPA via exchange mechanisms. (Remaining states.) For the most part, direct entry states will become users of the PCS replacement system called ICIS NPDES. All Batch states will need to use the Exchange Network to send their data to the new system. Combination states will therefore need to do both. While ICIS NPDES is a needed modernized system for NPDES data, States have two concerns about moving forward: The volumes of data that states are required to report to US EPA. US EPA has proposed that states report a new universe of facilities (e.g., wet weather and minor facilities) as well as additional data about existing facilities. This is a new burden on states, which is document in previous sections of this paper, regardless of whether a state is a direct user of the US EPA systems. The key concern of delegated states with their own systems is how much data is necessary for oversight of their programs. Technical implementation of batch states. These states are concerned that a system that was designed for data entry will not easily accept ʺbatchʺ data and they will continue to have difficulties getting their data into the new system. Summary Data To address the first issue/concern, States recommend providing summary information to US EPA, supplemented by detailed information readily available on States Exchange Network website (aka State Node). This recommendation is consistent with the CWA 7

10 and implementing regulations, the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Exchange Network Business Plan. Today, states that have their own systems must report all NPDES detailed data to US EPA (e.g., every monitoring data result even after compliance has been determined). Other programs, like drinking water haven t historically required this data even though the states are collecting and managing it. In this case, states collect all the detailed data, run compliance checks, and then send a subset of this data to US EPA. The drinking water program and the National Emissions Inventory in the air program don t rerun all the compliance checks for a delegated program. Federal implementing regulations recognize that States do not have to submit all data to the US EPA, but rather are required to submit summary data. In accordance with 40 CFR , States are required to prepare and submit quarterly, semi annual and annual reports demonstrating compliance. The federal regulations establish the information that must be included in these reports. The purpose of these reports is for US EPA to assess state management of the program as part of its oversight objectives. The federal rules do not require that all the underlying data supporting these reports be provided to US EPA on a regular basis. What the rules do provide under 40 CFR is that any information obtained or used in the administration of a State program shall be available to US EPA upon request without restriction. Additionally, for permit reviews, the rules under 40 CFR require the transmittal of only specific documents to US EPA. The rules further require the State programs to keep records and submit to US EPA that information that US EPA may reasonably require to ascertain whether the State program complies with the CWA. The rules do not require US EPA to re run compliance reports. This approach is consistent with what Congress envisioned as stated in 33 USCS 1251(f) It is the national policy that to the maximum extent possible the procedures utilized for implementing this Act shall encourage the drastic minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures, and the best uses of available manpower and funds, so as to prevent needless duplication [emphasis added] and unnecessary delays at all level of government. Further, the purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 was to minimize the paperwork burden for States resulting from the collection of information by or for the Federal Government. As used in the Act, burden means time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, or provide information for a Federal agency, including the resources expended for transmitting or otherwise disclosing the information. Over the past 20 years progress has been made in the administration of the NPDES program at the state level. One of the primary areas of progress has been the States ability to create their own databases to run the NPDES program. Many of these databases have been designed with the NPDES regulatory requirements incorporated into them and are used to track all aspects of the program, from the review of applications, creation and issuance of NPDES permit documents, to the analysis of noncompliance via monitoring report forms and/or enforcement inspections. However, while progress has been made in the state administration of the NPDES program, US EPA has continued to keep its oversight requirements at the same management level and in fact has increased the Statesʹ reporting burden with the addition of the new RIDE data element requirements. 8

11 It appears that US EPA requires almost the same amount of information for management of a non authorized State as it does for oversight of an authorized State. In US EPA s white paper dated March 21, 2006, titled, Management and Data Needs for the CWA NPDES Program it contends, Given US EPA s data needs, experience has shown that the availability and use of a centralized national data system provides the best means to facilitate the handling and storage of NPDES program information to ensure national consistency and to better ensure accurate data. Accordingly, the new draft PCS Policy Statement reflects US EPA s insistence on continuing with the same oversight requirement practices. The policy statement does not recognize the progress States have made and that effective oversight, national consistency and accurate data can be obtained by other means [emphasis added]. Summary data could be more accurately described as snapshot data. The States would provide a snapshot of the data currently collected and electronically available on a scheduled basis (for example, quarterly.) The data could be provided to a warehouse type environment, thereby eliminating the data relationships that exist in a production data entry system. The data for the warehouse could be provided by both the batch States and US EPA (using data in ICIS provided by direct and hybrid user States and US EPA.) The summary data would not be a count of actions, but rather it would provide specific facility and locational based permitting and enforcement data. For example, the summary data may look like: Proposed Permit Data Summary 9

12 Proposed Permit Data Summary continued 10

13 Proposed Enforcement Summary Data continued Proposed Enforcement Data Summary This data provides for transparency and allows the US EPA to ensure that authorized State programs are appropriately implemented and are achieving results. Summary data that is provided on a regular basis allows US EPA immediate access to consistent and complete information. Since the summary data is facility specific, it provides US EPA with the information needed to identify and track priority permits. The data should be sufficient for adequate compliance screening and development of enforcement targeting and for US EPA to fulfill its mission of performing compliance determination for all facilities discharging 11

14 wastewater into the nation s waterways 7. Since the data is also location based, US EPA can use the data for mapping to identify any issues that cross state boundaries. The data should therefore be sufficient for US EPA to perform national assessments and to conduct trend analysis. The summary data approach saves the states significant staff and IT systems resources by eliminating the transactional reporting approach (as specifically recommended by ERG in its Final Report) but still provides the data US EPA needs to do its job. The summary data approach requires little to no state system changes, and more importantly eliminates the daily maintenance required on both the state and US EPA staff to ensure the separate data systems are kept in synch. US EPA could not provide funds to support this maintenance for IDEF Middleware, the ultimate reason that reporting solution was disbanded. However, instead of providing funding to the batch States to feed ICIS, the US EPA could use those resources to build an extract program from ICIS to the warehouse to address its reporting needs. This approach should be more cost effective to both the States and US EPA. This approach would look like: Summary Data Approach State Application State Database State User Public & Facilities Choice of using State and/or US EPA Websites, results are the same State Publicly Available Website(s) Data Warehouse Exchange Network/CDX EPA Publicly Available Websites(s), QNCR, RNCR, ICIS Reports ICIS Database ERG has confirmed that this approach has technical and operational appeal. They reject it for providing all of RIDE because they believe that the data flow is too large and complex. However, if summary data were to be provided without the event driven constraints of ICIS, the size and complexity of the data flow would be greatly reduced. 7 An Independent Review of the ICIS NPDES Batch Release, July 31, 2006, prepared by ERG 12

15 The Draft ICIS-NPDES Policy Statement dated December 15, 2005 requires that all states provide the following data: 1. The inventory of facilities subject to NPDES permits. This includes information about these facilities, such as their geographic location. 2. Information about the features and status of the various permits associated with each facility, such as the pipes, limits, effective dates, and monitoring requirements. 3. Compliance monitoring and compliance status information according to 40 CFR For example, the current and historical compliance status of each facility based on self-monitoring information (e.g., Discharge Monitoring Reports required under 40 CFR (4)(i)) and government compliance monitoring activities (e.g., inspections). 4. Whether a facility is subject to enforcement, and information about the status and results of the enforcement actions. 5. The environmental and human health impact of these facilities, such as the nature of their discharges and the watersheds. We propose that US EPA revise its oversight requirements and allow states with delegated authority and who use their own database systems as their primary tool in running the NPDES program to report via summary data. Summary Data can be defined as that data that is needed by US EPA to complete their oversight commitments. We are asking US EPA to define Summary Data as follows: 1. The active inventory of facilities subject to NPDES permits. This includes NPDES number, information about these facilities, such as their geographic location, Permittee Name and Location of Activity. 2. Permit status, Permit Action, Permit Tracking dates and Discharge Type (Surface water or Stormwater). 3. Compliance monitoring and compliance status information according to 40 CFR Information compiled from inspections and system violation analysis including discharge monitoring non compliance. 4. Whether a facility is subject to enforcement, and information about the status and results of the enforcement actions. 5. Upon request from US EPA, additional information to be able to assess the environmental and human health impact of these facilities, such as the nature of their discharges and the watersheds. The summary data as defined would not include the state limit and monitoring data. This data may be supplied to US EPA on an as needed basis, but would be in a generic format that would supply them with the Discharge Monitoring Report data and its corresponding outfall and limit information. Additionally, some States currently have this information available on their websites. 13

16 Network Technology Please note that no matter what technology approach is adopted, the question of ʺWhat data would be sharedʺ has to be decided prior to its implementation. To address the second issue/concern, states propose the approaches, described below that are consistent with US EPAʹs Business Plan for the Exchange Network, for using State Exchange Network Websites to provide the supplemental data: 1. Node to Node Data Transfer to ICIS NPDES Data Warehouse States map to XML schema and send their NPDES data via their Node to US EPA s CDX node and the data is pushed into a data warehouse. US EPA would then be responsible for getting the data from the warehouse into ICIS NDPES. Data warehouses or data marts are often easier to get data from outside sources into them as the relationships to each data element are not as complex as those of a database linked to a production data entry system. This is a similar model that the Office of Water is now implementing for STORET data. 2. Node to Node Data Transfer to ICIS NPDES This approach uses the Exchange Network to flow data from States to US EPA. In this approach, States will map their data to the standard ICIS NPDES XML schema and send their data via their Node to US EPA s CDX Node. The state data is then pushed into the ICIS NPDES database. This approach is consistent with US EPAʹs current plan for non direct user states to flow data to US EPA. States are concerned about the feasibility of this solution given the complexity of the new ICIS database. It has been the experience of States and US EPA that flowing data into databases designed primarily for data loading (such as RCRAInfo) are difficult and resource intensive. States are also concerned that this option will present some of the same challenges as presented with the IDEF solution. The addition of new RIDE data elements may further complicate the data flow. An independent review of the ICIS NPDES Batch Release is currently in progress and a draft is expected to be completed by April 21. States experience is that Feeding PCS with an electronic interface has never been totally successful. States at one time or another have been at the mercy of the idiosyncratic problems inherent in the electronic transmission of data from their systems to PCS. As a result of having to Feed the US EPA system in the format mandated by the PCS data system States continually spend time addressing issues relating to missed updates and discrepancies in compliance and noncompliance. States continually are faced with explaining why, at times, data is not submitted on a timely basis or why the data is incorrect. It usually comes down to a problem with an update that did not take and the erroneous violation it has triggered. If States are asked to continue to Feed the US EPA system in the normal conventional sense we will continue to have the same issues in ICIS. If US EPA were to rely on the information supplied to them via summary data from the delegated states with their own systems, not only would the overall quality of the data improve, but its oversight program could also be streamlined. 14

17 3. Data Discovery Tool 8 The Environmental Information Exchange Network (EN) opens up the possibilities for new and better ways of sharing, exchanging, and utilizing data across partners. States and EPA, as environmental partners, now have the opportunity to revisit historical approaches of submitting or pushing data from multiple formats and sources into legacy databases which often is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. With 47 states participating in the EN, and seven more on the way, the EN is ripe for the development of innovative services to improve the sharing and management of environmental information. A viable alternative for data sharing provided by the EN is an approach that allows States to publish their NPDES data on their Nodes and make it available for US EPA or other partners to query at any given time. The basic concept is that US EPA and States develop a national set of data standards, schema, and queries which meet US EPA and State business need for management and oversight of the NPDES program. Any authorized user can use a web based interface to access States NDPES data. US EPA will use this data to answer specific questions, and may download the data for further analysis. US EPA may also elect to publish ICIS direct user States data for access through this user interface for combined analysis of all States data. The publication of direct user States data also allows these States easy access to their own data residing in ICIS for state or local analysis and program management. The concept seeks to substantially improve NPDES data quality by eliminating double data entry errors and manual correction of uploaded data. The end result materially improves the effectiveness of US EPA oversight of state authorized NPDES programs. The vision for Data Discovery is to create a mechanism by which all State and US EPA information can be discovered, queried, and presented within a single user interface. The Data Discovery tool provides the ability to discover what Nodes are available on the EN for data sharing, what data (data flows) are available on the EN, and the ability to dynamically query those Nodes and data sources to meet specific information needs. The Data Discovery tool assists all partners in the EN to leverage their existing infrastructure by sharing technologies and utilities across the EN. Example: US EPA Region IV (Region IV) CAFO Client Region IV states are tracking a considerable amount of data on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that is of interest to other states, Region IV, and other analysts. This initiative was funded by the Regional Administrator to publish CAFO information to the EN and to develop a model for the network that is capable of querying multiple network nodes and effectively aggregating and presenting the data. This model will serve as a reusable component of future EN Tools to simplify the use of data published to nodes and simplify the consumption of these resources for all network partners. 8 The Data Discovery Tool Section is new information. 15

18 This application was built on existing client framework designed and developed by Windsor Solutions, Inc. The original Windsor Node Client was developed primarily as an educational and testing tool rather than a data exploration and analysis tool. The enhancements developed to support the CAFO application have resulted in a tool that supports consumers of data accessible via the Network in addition to more technical users. The requirements of the Client are presented below along with the solution designed to satisfy these requirements. Requirement(s): Capability to access Network data discovery services in order to populate and select nodes, services, and parameters for queries from cached lists Capability of aggregating XML documents from multiple Network Nodes given an arbitrary XML schema. The following data services are used to collect this information: CSDX.GetDataServices, CSDX.GetRequest.List The Region IV CAFO Node Client requires a simple registration process for authorized users to access Node Client for querying data. The Client application is loaded on an authorized user s desktop and the application is launched to the user s personal Dashboard (Figure 1). Saved and shared queries are visible on the Dashboard as well as current session information and Client news such as new features and updates of the Client. A user may select an existing saved query or select a new query. 16

19 Figure 1: Client Dashboard After selecting a new query, the Data Flow Selection screen displays a list of available data flows from which the user will select a flow (Figure 2). The list of available flows may be updated by refreshing the metadata which will download any updates to the available flows. 17

20 Figure 2: Selecting a Data Flow Upon selecting a data flow, the user is prompted to select which Nodes to query (Figure 3). A list of Nodes that support the selected data flow are listed. The user may select a single Node or multiple Nodes (i.e. endpoint(s)) to query. 18

21 Figure 3: Selecting the Node(s) to query The user is now prompted to select the single data service to call. A list of data services supported by the Node(s) selected is listed (Figure 4). 19

22 Figure 4: Select Data Service Now the user will be prompted to enter values for the parameters (Figure 5). This screen is dynamically built based on the data discovery services. The Mouse Over function provides context help for each parameter field, and where a list of valid values exists, these are listed in the help field. Should the user have selected multiple nodes to query, different parameters may be selected for each node. 20

23 Figure 5: Select query parameters Requirement(s): Selecting a range of parameters for latitude and longitude from a map using a mouse The example depicted in Figure 5, parameters for latitude and longitude, include a feature that launches a Google map (Figure 6) and allows the user to select a geographical area. Google s map web services provide a free, powerful, and easily integrated solution to allow a user to select the spatial box as a search parameter. Notice the semi transparent box selected to include the area of the State of Mississippi. 21

24 Figure 6: Google map parameter selection Supported Discovery ParameterFieldIdentifier Values NorthLatitude SouthLatitude EastLongitude WestLongitude The box is created by a pair of left mouse clicks. The user can click Select & Close to use these coordinates. The values of the four corners of the bounding box are returned to the latitude and longitude data elements on the parameter selection screen (Figure 7). 22

25 Figure 7: Values returned from Google selection screen Once the parameters are defined, the user is presented with a confirmation page and the option to execute the query (Figure 8). The user is also presented with the option to save the query to reuse at a later date. This capability is very useful when creating a query that will be used regularly. 23

26 Figure 8: Confirmation Query Screen Requirement(s): Transforming XML documents returned using XSLT and rendering the result in a scrollable graphic user interface panel. The results are presented in using a list/detail approach in two associated stylesheets. The stylesheet also presents a mini map of the facility location based on the coordinates (if provided) for the CAFO facility (Figure 9). The stylesheet should be registered in the Data Discovery registry and accessed via the CSDX.GetStyleSheetList service. 24

27 Figure 9: Stylesheet Results Screen Requirement(s): Results Mapping The Client uses Google based mapping to plot one or more facilities returned on a map (Figure 10), and to view a satellite image of one or more facilities (Figure 12). The user has the usual Google controls for moving, zooming, displaying a map, satellite image or both; as well as clicking on each item to display the associated item name. 25

28 Figure 10: Plot Facility Results on Google map. 26

29 Figure 11: Satellite Image of Facility using Google Maps. Requirement(s): Advanced.NET formatting objects such as Data Grids The ability to convert string and XML documents into a data grid that is able to be displayed to the user The user may elect to employ a data grid to display the data (Figure 13). This provides capabilities such as iterative expansion/collapsing of data items and sorting. XML documents that are based on the same schema and received via the same data service, albeit from multiple nodes, are aggregated. 27

30 Figure 13: Data Grid View Requirement(s): Capability of linking to state web sites for additional state detail data The capability to link to state web sites for access to additional detailed data housed at the state level has also been identified as a desired feature. Three alternative methods with varying levels of context sensitive granularity have been outlined in the Prototype Concept Design for this project. Data record sensitive linking A context sensitive link could allow a user to link to a Partner specific web page that displays further details about a specific item of data within the XML (for example about a specific CAFO facility). This approach has been used before (e.g., in the PNWWQDE) by providing an element within the XML schema that allows a URL to be included by the source Partner. This capability will present the user with a mouse click link within either the data grid display, or within the stylesheet. 28

31 Data provider sensitive linking The second, more generic method would present a link to a Partner s subject sensitive home page that presents more details on the data being accessed by the client (e.g., the Mississippi State CAFO web page). To keep this capability generic for all flows, these links would need to be provided via the data discovery services. To access the link a user would right click on the list of Nodes that is presented once a specific flow is chosen. Flow sensitive linking The last method is the most generic and would provide a link to a generic web site that provides background information and additional links that describe the regulations, and other such useful information about the data provided through the flow. For example, the CAFO flow page might include the following links. For general background information: To obtain copy of regulations: To obtain state environmental agency contacts: To obtain compliance assistance information from EPA: The Region IV CAFO Client is currently in beta testing and includes a small universe of data elements selected by State and EPA program staff for the initial release. This application, however; even in its infancy, demonstrates the ability to access, query, and aggregate data across states for analysis and reporting. The infrastructure to support such an application for the NPDES program exists in a working environment today in the EN. The development effort is low. The only requirements are the collaborative efforts to develop an XML schema for data sharing, and stylesheets to display the data in a format that is easy to read and understand by all partners. Under a Data Discovery Tool approach for NPDES program oversight, EPA and other partners have access to real time, thus, more accurate data. This benefits not just EPA but also States that need access to other States data. The need for duplicate data entry is eliminated. All EN partners are presented with the same Client interface, so there is consistency in presentation. Publishing ICIS direct user States data for access through the Client interface provides an aggregated, national picture of NPDES data not just to EPA, but States, Tribes, and other partners as well. This provides direct user states with the access they need to their own data residing in ICIS for analysis and program management. EPA and other partners have the option of downloading the data for further analysis and reporting, with the responsibility of formatting being on the partner receiving the data. The ability of all partners to access timely, accurate, NPDES data in a format that is consistent across partners serves to significantly improve the management and oversight of the NPDES program at both the State and Federal levels. 29