130 likes | 484 Views
Kansas Department of Health and Environment Facility Profiler System. Introduction to the System. Exchange Network Grant History. One Stop Grant $500,000 (’02) Readiness Grant $297,000 (’03) Implementation Grant $300,000 (’04) Challenge Grant ( HERE ) $750,000 (’05)
E N D
Kansas Department of Health and Environment Facility Profiler System Introduction to the System
Exchange Network Grant History One Stop Grant $500,000 (’02) Readiness Grant $297,000 (’03) Implementation Grant $300,000 (’04) Challenge Grant (HERE) $750,000 (’05) Infrastructure Grant (CME) $223,000 (’06) Implementation II $245,000
Exchange Network Flow Goals State to EPA & EPA to State FRS, NEI, SDWIS, AQS, RCRA, FEA, RMP RCRAInfo, WQX, UIC, ICIS-NPDES (Proposed) State to State KS to {MO,NE,IA} (HERE Project Presentation Tomorrow) Intrastate KDA to KDHE (Ag Chemicals) Regulated Community TRI
45 32’ N Affiliated Parties Facility name, Industry Classification 122 40’W Geographic Location Environmental Interests Facility Profiler Data Content
Facility Profiler Goals • Establish an agency-wide data sharing environment • Support FOIA requests (e.g., ‘Who’s doing what nearby?’) thus reducing agency burden • Support drivers for integrated environmental data from EPA, the legislature, and the regulated community • Assist with internal bureau coordination (e.g., during permit reviews or enforcement actions) • Participate in the National Exchange Network
Additional Benefits • Browser based GIS mapping capabilities on agency desktops • Facility location address cleaning • Derivation of facility location coordinates • Identification of facility duplication in existing systems • Facility name data standardization • Allows users to query and download data • Can provide a ‘portal’ to bureaus’ inquiry systems
Multiple External Connections Internet Applications KDHEIntranet
Sharing • Facility Profiler Reuse • Michigan (.Net, SQL Server) • Kansas (.Net, Oracle) • North Dakota (.Net, SQL Server) • Nevada (.Net, Oracle) • Connecticut - variant (.Net, SQL Server) • Missouri (Java, DB2)
Conclusions • Integration doesn’t have to be all or nothing • Integrated data access doesn’t require integrated data management – a warehouse can be a highly effective, lower cost alternative • Integration is not just an agency thing anymore • Data about your state is probably disparate; • The EN allows for comprehensive data integration • States can collaborate effectively • Share data – e.g., HERE • Share investments – e.g., Node, Plugins, Applications (FP)