1 1

November 2007

Lisa Jenkins, OSWER/IMDQSWendy Bartel, Region 3

Steve Goranson, Region 5

Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)

Architecting the Land Between HQs and Regions

to the EAWG, Jan 10, 2008

re-presented from the OEI National Symposium St. Louis, Missouri, November 15, 2007

22

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 3

November 2007

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?

44

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

Session Overview – Regional Outreach

Current Status

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

55

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

Session Overview – Regional Outreach

66

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3

Region 3 SurveysWendy Bartel

Chief, Information Systems Branch

77

Background

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3

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.

88

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

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3

99

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.).

Data Access Issues related to obtaining data in a timely or easy-to-use fashion

Data Quality Issues related to the accuracy of data

Data Integration Issues related to the consistency of data across data sources

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3

1010

Issue Detail – HSCD View

HSCD System by Issue Type

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

ACS

ACS/Com

mits

ACRES

ARWeb

CERCLIS

EFACTS

EPA Webs

ite ICIS

ICTS

LEPC D

B

NPL-PAD

OSW

ER Poli

cy D

B

Repor

t Lin

k

RODs

Scorp

ios

SDMS

Nu

mb

er o

f Is

sues

Data Access Data Integration Data Quality

HSCD by Issue Type

Data Access

36%

Data Integration

36%

Data Quality28%

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3

1111

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

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3

1212

Issue Detail – WCMD System View

WCMD by Issue Type

Data Access

32%

Data Integration

38%

Data Quality30%

WCMD System by Issue Type

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

ACS

Enviro

- fac

ts

EPA Web

site

ICIS

IDEA

OTIS

RCRA Info TR

IUST

Nu

mb

er

of

Iss

ue

s

Data Access Data Integration Data Quality

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3

1313

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

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3

1414

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

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 3

1515

HQ to Regional Collaboration – R5

Region 5 Case StudiesStephen Goranson

Chief, Office of Information Services

1616

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

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 5

1717

1. Data Collection & Data Quality Improvementa. R5 SONS 07 Lessons Learnedb. Incident / Remediation Tracking (CERCLIS-epaosc.net)c. Landfill Data

2. Data Discovery and Usea. Leverage Exchange Network (HERE, HLS)b. Emergency Response Web Sites (epaosc.net, Geospatial Data Gateway)

3. Data Integration

a. Layering & Display Tools (ISA, ER Analyzer, ArcGIS Explorer )

b. Data Analysis & Modeling Tools (FIELDS, RATS, NEPAssist)

[Note that OSWER/OEM is already building solutions to many of these

issues into its Target Architecture]

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 5

1818

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

1919

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

(CERCLIS <-> epaosc.net)

2020

Landfills: Solutions

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

Municipal Solid Waste LandfillsIn Region 5

2. Data Discovery and Use: a.) Leverage Exchange Network

(a) HERE(a)

HERE (b) HLS(b) HLS

Heartland Emergency Response Exchange

R7, NE,IA, KS, MO):R7, NE,IA, KS, MO):

http://www.exchangenetwork.net/exchanges/cross/here.htm

R1, R2, R5 Homeland Security (MI, ME, R1, R2, R5 Homeland Security (MI, ME, NH, NJ):NH, NJ): http://statesdx.net/homelandsecurity/pages/public/background.htm

2222

Concluding Thoughts

Information is the major asset for decision making Communications and Partnerships Effective & efficient data sharing depends on:

Overall organization support and momentum Information infrastructure that is tied to organization goals,

objectives & measures Developing useful, understandable, and comprehensive data

standards, data documentation, and data content quality that can be integrated into multiple program data Clear policies & guidelines on appropriate security &

confidentiality

HQ to Regional Collaboration – Region 5

2323

Architecting Solutions

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

Several Areas for Consideration:

2424

Architecting Solutions – OSWER’s Approach

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

OSWER’s Framework to Capture and Link Business to Technology

Multi-dimensional Recommendations Views (MRVs)

2525

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

Summary / Next Steps

Where to go from here…?

2626

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?

Open Forum Discussion / Q&A

jenkins.lisa@epa.gov