1 / 62

EDF Review - Electronic Data Reporting for the UST Program

EDF Review - Electronic Data Reporting for the UST Program. March 22, 2002 Michael W. Gjerde Division of Clean Water Programs, SWRCB (916) 341-5682 gjerdem@cwp.swrcb.ca.gov. The Status Quo Paper “Shuffling ”.

virgier
Download Presentation

EDF Review - Electronic Data Reporting for the UST Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EDF Review - Electronic Data Reporting for the UST Program March 22, 2002 Michael W. Gjerde Division of Clean Water Programs, SWRCB (916) 341-5682 gjerdem@cwp.swrcb.ca.gov

  2. The Status Quo Paper “Shuffling” Regulators receive huge volumes of paper reports containing soil and groundwater data. • 1998 CA State Audit • Inefficient use of regulator’s time to “hunt & find” documents and data • Large costs to store and archive documents • No way to analyze volumes of site data • No way to share documents/data with other agencies & the public • No systematic way to identify high priority sites

  3. The Status Quo Regulatory Databases Typically Limited to: • Basic facility (permit) & contact info. • Regulatory status • Limited soil and groundwater data requires hand entry • Data is not current- out of date • Data quality is poor • Dataset is incomplete & unreliable

  4. Why is Electronic Data Management Important? • Regulators need to make decisions based on actual site specific data • Need to continually “feed” the system with complete and up-to-date data • Many sites are “closed” with contaminants in place- long term tracking & archive required (i.e. prevent building schools on contaminated sites) • The public and many other regulatory agencies need access to site data

  5. Electronic Submissions • AB 2886 (Oct 2000) -- Water Code 13196-13198 • Sec 2729 & 2729.1, Div 3, Title 23 CCR (June 2001) • September 1, 2001 - UST Laboratory Data • January 1, 2002 - UST Sample Information • The latitude and longitude of groundwater wells accurate to within one meter referenced to 2 CSRS geodetic control points • The surveyed elevation, using geodetic datum, of well casing in monitoring wells sampled • Groundwater information (DTW, FP, status) • Site map

  6. Requirements • Laboratories prepare chemical analytical results in specified Electronic Deliverable Format (EDF) for soil and water samples • RPs submit electronic laboratory. sample information, DTW, and locational data to SWRCB in addition to regular hard copy reports sent to lead agency • Lead Agencies match electronic submissions with receipt of hard copy reports, check field point names

  7. Electronic Reporting Benefits • Improve data quality • Provides current data • Provide statewide access to information • Better manage groundwater pollutants • Detect threats to drinking water wells • Make better decisions • Provide public access

  8. Data Challenges Gigantic Amounts of Site Specific Compliance Data: • ~100 to 200+ Million dollars of data reported each year • ~16,000 Active LUST Cases • ~6 to 20+ monitoring wells per site • Quarterly sampling is typical • For each sample- analytical results and QA data for ~10-50 parameters • Quarterly Depth to Water data • Periodic Elevation data • Locational data (latitude & longitude)

  9. LUST Program Organizational Challenges Challenges: • LUST oversight by over 130 regulatory agencies • Involves thousands of Responsible Parties and Environmental Consultants • Involves hundreds of analytical laboratories

  10. What’s the UST Solution? • Secure Internet-driven database for regulators to track their cases, enforcement & compliance data • Secure 24x7 Internet-based electronic reporting tools to electronically connect and manage data from RPs, laboratories & consultants • Integration of database with GIS interface for public access and risk evaluation tools

  11. Our AB2886 e-government Strategy Involved Stakeholders • Developed in extremely close cooperation with our stakeholders • Thousands of environmental contractors • Thousands of responsible parties • Hundreds of analytical laboratories • Quickly adjusted and improved our applications at the request of our users • Relied on user feedback for success • Broad support from many types of users: • Regional Boards • Local Programs • Laboratories • Consultants • Oil Companies • Surveyors

  12. State-wide Training & Help Desk Support • GeoTracker Help Desk - 8 Monthsgeotracker@cwp.swrcb.ca.gov (800) 506-9118 5,716 phone & email interactions with users • EDF Help Desk -1125 phone and email • Training Sessions - July -Oct 2001 • 8 week-long programs • Many one-day EDF Overview sessions • > 2,000 participants

  13. GeoTracker & AB2886 statistics • 70-80,000 hits per week • ~4 Million hits per year • Largest e-reporting program for laboratory analytical data nationally

  14. Statistics SEPTEMBER 1 2001 - MARCH 20, 2002 TOTAL SITES CLAIMED 6,565 # OF SUCCESSFUL EDF SUBMITTALS 3,325 REGISTERED RP/CONSULT USERS 630/850 REGULATORS 460 EDF LABORATORIES 150 # OF MONITORING WELLS 42,212 MONITORING WELLS WITH EDF DATA 20,326 48% MONITORING WELLS WITH XYZ DATA 21,930 52% TOTAL RECORDS: > 900,000 TO DATE EXPECTED FOR 2002 --- 4,000,000!

  15. EDF Acceptance Stats as of March 20, 2002

  16. Introductory Web Pages • http://www.swrcb.ca.gov. • http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/cwphome/ust/docs/ab2886/index.html • SWRCB GeoTracker Database • http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/ • Passwords and Login - RPs/Consultants • https://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/ab2886/ • Passwords and Login - Regulators • https://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/regulators/

  17. Implementation • Preparing for the sampling event • Sample submission to the laboratory • Laboratory analysis and reporting • Data formats preparation • Data format verification • Uploading data into GeoTracker

  18. Electronic Reporting Set-up Tasks • Obtain Password • Claim Facilities • Establish Facility Security • Obtain Global IDs • Load Field Point Names

  19. Linking Data to GeoTracker • Global ID • An identifier created by the GeoTracker System • Represents a site or facility identifier • Field Point Name • The name assigned by the Consultant/RP to a survey or sample collection point

  20. What is EDF? • An electronic version of a laboratory report • Data is formatted for ease of use by multiple parties • Provides a consistent level of quality

  21. Chain-of-Custody • Global ID • Field Point Names • Sample IDs • Collection Date/Time • Preservation

  22. Analytical Results • Laboratory IDs • Analyses Date • Preparation Batch • Results

  23. Data Quality Control • Control Limits • Surrogates • Blanks • Spikes

  24. How it Works • Laboratory exports data from their Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) • Data is converted into EDF 1.2i format using either tools developed by the laboratory or tools provided by the EDF Program • Data is then transferred to the client with an associated hard copy report

  25. Benefits of EDF • Eliminates laborious reentry of hard copy laboratory data • Nonconformance to standard analytical methods and procedures easily identified • Includes and Conforms to all SW-846 method requirements • Provides a standard data format to be shared by multiple parties

  26. Available Tools • GeoTracker - Web-based Geo-spatial Database • COELT - Corps of Engineers Loading Tool • EDCC - Electronic Deliverable Consistency Checker • DataStream Free - Data Verification and Reporting Tool • GeoTracker Online Web Checking and Upload Tools • Online Demos and Training

  27. COELT - Corp of Engineers Loading Tool • Laboratory software for preparation of EDF deliverables Many laboratories have their own LIMS and do not need to use COELT to produce EDF • Allows for link to Laboratory Information Management System and manual data entry • Electronic data consistency checking ensures format compliance • Hard copy reports generated from electronic data - legally defensible

  28. EDCC - Checks • Error Check Examples: • Format Errors • Fields submitted in the incorrect order • Incorrect valid values • Logic Errors • Analysis Date prior to Sample Date • Test without results • Content Errors • Detection limits greater than reporting limits

  29. EDCC - Electronic Data Consistency Checker • EDCC is available as software for a PC and is also accessible via the Web at the GeoTracker site • EDCC - PC version checks for all laboratory generated content • EDCC - Web version checks for all laboratory generated content plus Global IDs and Field Point Names

  30. DataStream Free • Reporting Tool for Consultants • Organizes Data • Data Clean-Up (to edit field point names and global Ids) • QA/QC Reports

  31. What is SURVEY_XYZ? • A format for electronic delivery of well location coordinates, elevation and groundwater measurement data • Provides the geo-spatial coordinates for the GeoTracker System

  32. Location Information • One-time submittal • Latitude/Longitude data (in decimal degrees, to 7 decimal points) • Measure 1 meter accuracy or better • Determined with Third Order methods using a minimum of 2 geodetic control points from the California Spatial Reference System-Horizontal (CSRS-H) • Submission will be based upon Global ID and Field Point Name plus meta data

  33. Elevation Information • Periodic submittal • From top of casing • Measure to +/- 0.01 Foot On-Site Accuracy (relative intersite well elevations elevations) • The absolute elevation, the value referenced to a vertical datum will usually exceed 0.01 ft (primarily due to the distance to valid benchmark(s) and the methods used to bring elevation on site) • Submission will be based upon Global ID and Field Point Name

  34. Depth to Groundwater • Submit each time a well is sampled • From top of well casing: • Floating product surface • Groundwater surface • Measure to +/-0.01 foot accuracy • Submission will be based upon Global ID and Field Point Name

  35. Site Map • Periodic submittal • Site Map- • groundwater well locations, • boreholes • transient sampling points (i.e. direct push…) • other field points utilized for sampling • locations of underground storage tanks • former underground storage tanks • dispenser islands • buildings • roads • File type- gif, tiff, jpeg or pdf • Submission will be based upon Global ID

  36. SURVEY_XYZ Benefits • Geo-spatial data of known precision and accuracy • Data available for modeling constituents • Active archive for public use

  37. RP’s Effort • Finding sites in GeoTracker • 10% sites with some problems • Claim Site • Approve Consultants • Work with Consultants on site surveys and data submittal process.

  38. Consultant Effort • Find site in GeoTracker • Claim site (approval of RP) • Upload field points • Check Laboratory EDF and upload • Check and upload survey data • Upload site maps and field data • Averaging 1 to 2 hours per report to find, claim, review and upload EDFs

  39. Laboratory EDF • Major labs are providing EDF • Had initial problems with EDF • Now moving from “Startup” to Production mode for EDF submittals

  40. Online Training

  41. Overview of GeoTracker and AB2886 Electronic Reporting Example Responsible Party Screens

  42. Main Menu Screen

  43. View Associated Facilities

  44. Results of Search Associated Facilities

  45. Results of View Submittals

  46. Overview of GeoTracker and AB2886 Electronic Reporting Example Regulator Pages

  47. https://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/regulators Login Page

  48. Summary Report of Electronic Submissions - by Facilities

  49. Summary Report of Electronic Submissions - By Type

More Related