Lisa Jenkins, OSWER/IMDQS Wendy Bartel, Region 3 Steve Goranson, Region 5

1. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Architecting the Land Between HQs and Regionsto the EAWG, Jan 10, 2008re-presented from the OEI National Symposium St. Louis, Missouri, November 15, 2007 Lisa Jenkins, OSWER/IMDQSWendy Bartel, Region 3Steve Goranson, Region 5

2. Introductions: Meet the Speakers • Lisa Jenkins, HQ – OSWER • OSWER Lead Architect, OSWER/OPM/IMDQS • Wendy Bartel, Region 3 • Chief, Information Systems Branch • Stephen Goranson, Region 5 • Chief, Office of Information Services

3. Agenda Welcome and Introductions Session Overview HQ to Regional Interaction Region 3 Surveys Region 5 Case-Studies Architecting Solutions Proposed Next Steps Open Forum Discussion Other Pain-Points Between Regions and OSWER? Between Other HQ Offices and OSWER?

4. Session Overview – Regional Outreach Current Status • To date, OSWER has focused on • HQ business needs, • Reducing system costs by reducing redundancy, finding potential areas to leverage and reducing maintenance costs by cutting back on the plethora of systems • Use of Agency-wide tools • Improved Communication and Coordination across OSWER • OSWER’s Segment Architecture Efforts Identified the Need for Regional Outreach and a focus on Data • Goal was to identify “touch-points” (“pain points”) between systems, services, processes, and data where further analysis / architecture can be leveraged • Particularly interested in data issues

5. Session Overview – Regional Outreach • Regional Participation • Contacted each region to seek input on touch-points and pain points • Region 3: Lead for Superfund, Brownfields and OEM • Developed Survey tool to identify potential starting points • Region 5: Lead for RCRA (OSW and OUST) • Reviewed relevant case-studies that highlighted the need for further analysis

6. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3 Region 3 Surveys Wendy Bartel Chief, Information Systems Branch

7. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3 Background • As part of the ongoing enterprise architecture efforts being conducted by OSWER in EPA HQ, EPA Region 3 was engaged to perform a survey of business processes and systems in the Hazardous Site Cleanup Division (HSCD) and the Waste and Chemicals Management Division (WCMD) • The survey consisted of 10 questions aimed at identifying any issues related to the “touch points” (i.e., areas in which data are exchanged) between the Region 3 office and EPA HQ via various data systems • The survey was disseminated in late October and results were gathered throughout November.

8. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3 Results Summary • A total of 21 survey responses were gathered: • HSCD (8 responses) • Office of Brownfields and Outreach – 2 • Office of Regional Counsel – 6 (These individuals work with HSCD staff.) • WCMS (13 responses) • RCRA Compliance and Enforcement – 3 • Technical Support – 7 • General Operations – 1 • State Programs - 2

9. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3 Issues Overview • Responses predominantly focused on data issues related to the systems used by each respondent • The issues reported have been loosely categorized into three buckets (see below) • We have an opportunity to deepen the dialog with Survey Responders, to verify the cause of the problem (User Interface, Training, Design, Terminology, etc.).

10. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3 Issue Detail – HSCD View

11. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3 Issue Detail – HSCD View • Lag time between submittal of data to HQ and the availability of reports on that data complicates the business process • Noted for Brownfields and ACRES • Submitting similar datasets to multiple systems for different purposes complicates reporting • Noted for ICIS, ACS, CERCLIS • Multiple reporting systems with differences in how data is reported leads to multiple, and differing representations of the same data • Noted for ReportLink, Cerclis, EFACTS, SGWeb

12. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3 Issue Detail – WCMD System View

13. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3 Issue Detail – WCMD View • Duplicative Data Reporting • Cited for RCRAInfo and ACS, • Training and Outreach for national system not adequate for using system or staying current on system requirements • Cited for RCRAInfo, Toxics Release Inventory, EPA Website • System does not provide easy-to-use or comprehensive planning capabilities • Cited for ICIS and RCRAInfo • System does not adequately support Regional role as overseer of state data entry • Cited for RCRAInfo

14. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3 Next Steps • Follow-up with individual responders • Broaden survey instrument to additional users of systems with priority issues • Analyze the systems in question to determine architectural solution

15. HQ to Regional Collaboration – R5 Region 5 Case Studies Stephen Goranson Chief, Office of Information Services

16. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 5 About the Region 5 Efforts to Date • Introduction • SONS07 Exercise pointed out needs for some improvement in data collection, quality, access, and analysis processes supporting emergency response (ER) • R5 Senior manager summit meetings resulted in (1) updating R5 IT resources for emergency response with end of year 2007 funds; (2) a start to aggressively improve the top 25 Regional data bases needed for ER; (3) forming a “Capacity Improvement Team” of Regional data managers and analysts to establish and exercise SOP’s for ER data integration & visualization • FY2008 Goal: Data process improvements to support R5 OSWER activities • Highlighting a few cases which are or will be addressed through Regional-HQ information architecture cooperation

17. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 5 • Data Collection & Data Quality Improvement • R5 SONS 07 Lessons Learned • Incident / Remediation Tracking (CERCLIS-epaosc.net) • Landfill Data • Data Discovery and Use • Leverage Exchange Network (HERE, HLS) • Emergency Response Web Sites (epaosc.net, Geospatial Data Gateway) • Data Integration • Layering & Display Tools (ISA, ER Analyzer, ArcGIS Explorer ) • Data Analysis & Modeling Tools (FIELDS, RATS, NEPAssist) [Note that OSWER/OEM is already building solutions to many of these issues into its Target Architecture]

18. 1. Data Quality Improvement: a.) R5 SONS 07 Lessons Learned • Reviewed data bases needed for ER and rank order by need to improve (accuracy, completeness, accessibility) • Separated EPA purchased or acquired versus Program databases • Examples: FRS, UST, Landfills, PWS

19. (CERCLIS <-> epaosc.net) 1. Data Quality Improvement: b.) Incident/Remediation Tracking Background: • Data from epaosc.net extract was lacking (lat/long, start & completion dates, authority, action) • Extracted CERCLIS removal data to get a more complete set of locations and dates Challenges: • How do we capture/improve non-removal data? • Pre-deployments • Exercises • How do we capture/improve Oil Pollution Act data? Solutions: • OSWER/OEM is addressing issues through new Environmental Assessment Module as part of the Environmental Management Portal (EMP) by EOY2008

20. Landfills: Solutions Municipal Solid Waste Landfills In Region 5 • SHORT TERM (good) • Gather data from state websites • Format into GIS data layer (SDE or geodatabase) • Publish to EPA Geodata Gateway • Usually have restrictions on sharing data outside EPA or Federal community • LONG TERM (better!) • Link state databases to EPA through Exchange Network nodes • MSW Landfills • Construction & Demolition Landfills • Underground Storage Tanks • Expand Heartland Emergency Response Exchange to Region 5

21. 2. Data Discovery and Use: a.) Leverage Exchange Network Heartland Emergency Response Exchange (a) HERE (b) HLS R7, NE,IA, KS, MO): http://www.exchangenetwork.net/exchanges/cross/here.htm R1, R2, R5 Homeland Security (MI, ME, NH, NJ):http://statesdx.net/homelandsecurity/pages/public/background.htm

22. HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 5 Concluding Thoughts • Information is the major asset for decision making • Communications and Partnerships • Effective & efficient data sharing depends on: • Overall organization supportand momentum • Information infrastructure that is tied to organization goals, objectives & measures • Developing useful, understandable, and comprehensive data standards, data documentation, and datacontent quality that can be integrated into multiple program data • Clear policies & guidelines on appropriate security & confidentiality

23. Architecting Solutions Several Areas for Consideration: • How do you effectively document and communicate a problem and its solution? 1.) Know your audience – addressing business AND technology stakeholders 2.) Take a business-driven, inclusive approach to defining an issue 3.) Leverage a framework that captures and links both business and technical analysis 4.) Provide a ‘Line-of-Sight’ from the business need to the technical solution that addresses the need • What resources and/or background information is relevant? • Agency-wide Enterprise Tools (“build once, use many”) • Knowledge of Services Oriented Architecture (SOA) approach to “Enable to Share” • Focus on building upon what is already there • Try not to think in a ‘stove-piped’ manner

24. Architecting Solutions – OSWER’s Approach OSWER’s Framework to Capture and Link Business to Technology Multi-dimensional Recommendations Views (MRVs) Operations – Depicts an operational scenario that would be affected by the solution Interface – Identifies user interaction with data and systems Data – Highlights high-level data repositories System – Shows how systems play a role in the target architecture Recommendations – Summarizes actionable steps to transition towards the target environment shown in the MRV

25. Summary / Next Steps Where to go from here…? • Work with R3 and R5 to incorporate the solutions into OSWER’s Segment Architecture • Create and Validate MRVs for the pain-points identified in R3 and R5 • Continue to work and communicate with R3 and R5 and our OSWER offices for Superfund, Brownfields, Emergency Management, etc. • Architect  Invest  Build • Identify other Regions and HQ Offices willing to participate • Identify solutions that span across Regions • Identify pain points and solutions that span across HQ Offices • Integrate solutions into OSWER’s Transition Strategy and Sequencing Plan and Target Architecture

26. Open Forum Discussion / Q&A • Do you have any other “pain points at the touch points” between OSWER HQ applications, data or processes you would like to share? • Any questions? jenkins.lisa@epa.gov