John Chelen, ChairmanHampshire Research InstituteApril 1, 2009john@chelen.net202-797-7200Presented at EPA 2009 TRI Conference

Fulfilling the Promise of EPCRA

Hello my colleagues and friends, it's a great pleasure and honor to join the other panelists and speak before you today. Looking out over the audience, it's wonderful to see the reemerging optimism and smiles on the faces of so many people who held such great expectations for the TRI about twenty years ago. I can almost hear Sergeant Pepper playing in the background.

However, while we have to rejoice over the opportunities now in front of us, we also have to challenge ourselves to make best use of them. It's time for us to think about the original problems addressed by EPCRA, our reasserted need for transparency in government and industry, and a recommitment to citizen awareness and participation. We need to establish an agenda that will make up for lost time. So, let's take a trip down memory lane and project forward to the horizon.

Where did this all begin? Perhaps we should take a moment to think about one of the triggering event of EPCRA - Bhopal. It didn't happen to us in the US, but the graphic pictures were in all the papers, showing the anguish and pain of the victims; it was troubling to think that this was a US company that operated plants in the US. Thus, it had a galvanizing effect on those advocates and legislators around the country who understood that accidents will happen, and since such accidents can have drastic effects, we need to prepare.

Our national response, EPCRA, was on the bleeding edge of government policy and technical innovation. There was not an adequate organizational framework in place to encourage and support local forces to plan for emergencies. Also, before the passage of EPCRA, government data, even Census data, was available for the anointed few. As for technology, too many people inside government didn't understand what a database management system was, let alone how to provide data services to the public. Who knew what the phrase from EPCRA, “make available through telecommunications and other means” actually meant and how it could be implemented. Back then, most people didn't know what a “chat room” was, let alone the value of email. AOL had less than 5 thousand users. I remember the first 1 gigabyte drive obtained for RTK NET, the size of a brick, that cost us $3,000 back then, probably the equivalent of $10,000 in today's currency, while we might pay $1 today, if we could find such a small drive. Several analysts avowed it would take more than $15 million to publish the TRI to the public.

While it would be a pleasure to recount the brilliant thinking and hard work of the large number of people who joined together for the implementation of EPCRA, from the grass-roots advocates in New Jersey, to the administrative technocrats who wrestled with that simple phrase “telecommunications and other means”, to the enlightened corporate executives who saw an opportunity to learn how to save money by preventing waste, to the reporters who built hard-hitting stories based on real data, not to mention the political appointees under a Republican administration who enthusiastically worked to fulfill the letter of the law, there are too many people we'd offend by not mentioning their names in the short amount of time we have today.

However, once the Form R data had been submitted to EPA, some of you may recall that the TRI was first independently and freely published with the use of BBS groupware that later was incorporated into Lotus notes, integrated with a separate DBMS donated by a leading firm later acquired by IBM. This service was accessible via the tortuously slow modems we had back then. But, it did help community and research groups plan and share their experiences using the TRI and collaborate over what else they wanted, as well as helping them “tech-up”. Very rapidly a dozen EPA databases, including the TRI, were merged through the process we might today call a mash-up. Afterwards, when the galvanizing power of public access to information was realized, the TRI helped trigger a re-thinking about what public environmental information services could attain, which then helped stimulate the creation of Envirofacts. In turn, those successes stimulated the formation of OEI.

Thus we can see that EPCRA helped to democratize data and elevate respect for the scientific abilities of people in our communities. EPCRA also helped stimulate the use of technology by government. Unfortunately, today we see that the TRI has been outpaced by other commercial and governmental initiatives. The SERC and LEPC framework still remains unfulfilled for the most part. It doesn't have to remain that way. We should be ready to takes steps today that at least equal the innovations demanded by EPCRA when it was first passed.

So, let's talk about EPCRA and what it means for us today. Over the last couple of weeks I've spoken to a range of people who have worked with the TRI, from all sectors, and asked them about their experiences, what the TRI 's meant for them, and what we should do next. Three themes were commonly expressed.

The first theme relates to the concept of “balance of power”. While we might take for granted the balance of power mechanisms that are built into our Constitution, that balance was only sought for internal powers within the federal and state establishment. The US Constitution didn't foresee, nor address, the rise of our industrial and financial institutions whose great size can overwhelm normal citizens' efforts at the local level. EPCRA was an attempt to level the playing field, at least with regards to the risks of toxic chemicals. It relied on the modern forces of mass communications and a citizen/consumer's perspective, focused nationally, to apply marketing and advertising principles, inverted for the benefit of the citizen, to raise public awareness and demonstrate which industrial and commercial activities needed additional incentives to change.

A second common theme was a renewed respect for the intelligence of the average citizen or local official to cope with hard scientific data instead of general political platitudes. It was expected, and citizens were encouraged, to take science into their own hands. No longer could someone like Lois Gibbs be challenged that she didn't have her facts straight. An ordinary citizen could show up at a permit hearing with certified data that demonstrated actual pollution and potential risks. Our normal woman-in-the-street, quietly determined and patriotic, exemplified by the firefighter, was handed the keys to complicated data.

The third theme is the use of advanced information technology. Not only did TRI force government and advocacy groups to learn the new technology, users of the TRI were in the forefront of public use of the Internet, data analysis tools, and such esoteric ideas as a federal information architecture. One of the first issues of Wired magazine highlighted the TRI and the unique government/public relationship that had been forged. It's a very positive technical legacy.

So now, let's take these three themes forward and see how we might extend them today.

Has there been a change in the balance of power to influence the levers of government? We could probably argue that for the next 4 years. However, at least the balance of power has shifted. Many of us believe that the growth of the Internet is part and parcel of that theme, however unintended. The last presidential elections, and numerous citizen and consumer efforts, show that the Internet is a significant leveler of access to information. Most of us agree that Google is transformative in our ability to understand anything, but especially to counter ill-informed political assertions. However, these things do work both ways. Was the Internet, and the rapidity of transfer of mortgage rate information, a component of the real estate financing bubble? Additionally, we can't discount ways in which the Internet can distract us and sideline our efforts, or split off interest groups who are manipulated by the more powerful megaphone provided by the Internet.

As for whether we have more respect for the intelligence and analytical abilities of citizens, I'm not ready to offer a final judgment. There's a little YouTube video that shows the risks we face. Maybe it's a parody but I think it may be true. A woman uploaded a video of her lawn water sprinkler. In the sunlight, you can see a range of colors in the mist, prompting her to shout “What's in the water? What chemicals are they hiding from us?” Some say that's similar to the real effects of the TRI, it has only inflamed unwarranted fears. From my conversations with many of you out there, you don't share that belief that TRI data has been misused. I'd agree with that. The use of the TRI represents a solid body of competent scientific work that stands second to none, and encourages us to do more.

For those of us here today, the best means of showing whether we embrace this theme is to make the choice to increase the data we provide and help our citizens use that data. Hampshire Research has assisted the CEC in preparing the annual “Taking Stock” report. In this effort we analyzed and compared the data from the three PRTR's, “pollutant release and transfer registries”, the international name for TRI-like systems, of the US, Canada, and Mexico. It's sad to say the US does not retain the lead it once had and we have room to improve our monitoring of toxic chemical risks in our nation. The Children's Environmental Health Protection Act is a good step to build on EPCRA experiences. However, we also need to expand the TRI directly. That means more chemicals must be added, such as the complete set of POPS chemicals and PBTs, the Criteria Air Contaminants, pesticides, and greenhouse gases. We need coverage of more sectors, especially energy production, in particular, oil and gas, and POTW's, “publicly owned treatment works”, who can help us track the ultimate disposal of many water-borne toxics and discover potential problems with our water supplies and water bodies. And, perhaps most important of all, we need to include toxics in products as another medium of release. One estimate suggests that there is a 10 to 1 ratio of toxics in products compared to all other releases, and we have to recognize that these chemicals will eventually migrate into the general environment. Adding products as another medium can be accomplished without new legislation, it's already covered by EPCRA. Moreover, such coverage would stimulate the heart of our national commercial purpose and have very positive effects in reviving our economy with new green products that are internationally competitive.

Next, we need improved organization and presentation of data. To organize the data better, we need better indexing and linkages among the various EPA and other federal databases. For example, we could spin off page 1 of the TRI Form R and create a facility registry form with a unique ID number for each regulated entity. We could make that ID the indexing cornerstone of all other EPA systems, with this new form fulfilling a classic SOA, or service oriented architecture, function whereby facilities can report such data once to EPA, who will then make it available to all program offices and other federal agencies. About 8 years ago, EPA funded a study through NAPA, the National Academy of Public Administration, to look at this concept; the report demonstrated broad support for this approach throughout all sectors, including both industry and advocacy; that team also estimated that nearly a

billion dollars a year could be saved if this number could be standardized throughout the federal government. That report also hinted that, in addition, EPA should lead the movement to establish a common corporate, or respondent, ID number, a natural mechanism better understood today in this day of digital reporting. Either the IRS EIN, “Employer Identification Number”, or the Census Department's organizational ID, could be used in the same SOA manner, eliminating redundancy and errors and saving money. Today, we can see that such a respondent ID, coupled with up-front respondent information could work hand-in-hand with electronic reporting and fulfill several CROMERR objectives.

But, perhaps we should go even further. EPA could take the lead in the integration of all environmentally-related data, federal, state, and international, as well as any other sources that help fulfill the mandate of protecting human health from environmental risks. Data from other federal agencies should be linked with EPA data, preferably with similar SOA real-time inter-systems mechanisms, but also by the wholesale importation of commercial data when that's proven to be cost-effective. We can envision a system that will give us a roster of industrial plants regulated by EPA, and also provide the permits or contracts each plant might hold from DOE and DOI, as well as their D&B profiles. And, such integration should be carried through on the dissemination side as well; EPA could expand the integration of its data with commercial services like Google earth. However, these commercial means should not stand in the way of the development of similar government-operated data services. In fact, EPA should support the development of a comprehensive environmental data dissemination and analysis service, similar to what DOD has developed for its own purposes, a world data reference system that integrates all government environmental and related data and provides a means to interconnect and share models and other analytical tools to better mine that data. We might call such a system the World Environmental Information Reference System.

Next, we have to consider the role of OEI within EPA. While we have to give credit to OEI staff for their efforts to speed up TRI data collection and the creation of the impressive CDX data pipeline, the mission of OEI is somewhat strained and contradictory, especially regarding the various data collection and dissemination efforts of other program offices. We should consider how to improve the ways OEI can focus on collaboratively assisting program offices with their information collection and dissemination efforts. Perhaps it's time to transfer the TRI back to OPPT, so that the enhancement of the TRI is driven by informed program-driven experts. OEI would then continue to develop and operate the underlying systems, like CDX, own and operate all the media systems of the program offices, provide tools for the collection, analysis and publication of all databases, help programs obtain data, from anywhere, and help them publish that data, and their analyses, to meet their programmatic objectives.

That then would permit OEI to reinvent the traditional, clunky multiplicity of separate databases for each program office as a single integrated case management system. Industry takes for granted that such integrated systems are the norm, just look at the success of SAP. Having a single consolidated case management system, with separate data tables and utilities for each office, significantly would reduce costs and the challenges of data integration and analysis. The transition to such a system would be facilitated through the creation of the respondent and facility IDs and registration mechanisms mentioned earlier, which would be implemented first through the TRI. This capability would then serve as the backbone for an expandable transaction manager that could flexibly support the needs of any program office at the federal or state level. Each program office would then be brought into the fold in a gradual and sympathetic way. That process would make it very clear how to reduce reporting burdens to the minimum necessary by identifying duplicate data elements. It further would help program offices understand data gaps and the best way to improve data content. It would also improve

oversight and enforcement efforts both inside of EPA and in the states and other federal agencies as well. System development and operations costs could be reduced and used for improved program operations.

Moreover, such an approach would save money for the states and regulated industry. For the states, quality control expenses, which can consume up to 50% of a system's budget, would be substantially reduced and enforcement would be strengthened. For regulated industry, expensive redundant and repetitive reporting could be minimized and their ability to question the benefit/cost ratio of new data would be rationalized.

This also would promote the elimination of duplicate systems and retrieval mechanisms that confuse and complicate the current situation. How do we best explain to our users the reason for differences between TRI Explorer and Envirofacts systems, instead of using the same front-end software interface for different generations of data? FRS would be unnecessary since the up-front respondent and facility registration mechanisms would obviate the costly, and never-ending, back-end reconciliation. And, efforts like OECA's OTIS and IDEA would infuse the design and operation of the core single case management system instead of having to stand alone and incur additional costs.

Such an integrated framework could be coupled with multiple user interfaces for the program offices and the public, depending upon their analytical needs. For some, the data might seen simply as the “Facility Performance Index”. For others, it could be seen as the “Environmental Reference Inventory”, a detailed ledger of all reported data for all facilities or any geographic area. For others, it could be presented as the “Corporate Performance Index”, with comparative measures jointly established by program offices. For others, they might access the “World Environment Information Reference System” mentioned above, a multi-dimensional Google Earth-type visual index combining raw data and model-based extrapolations that help focus data at any level of scale. Eventually, such a framework could be extended to a federal wide SOA-based distributed virtual database with additional user interfaces focused on the needs of other agency missions.

Moreover, as such a system evolved, we'd be more comfortable with real-time reporting, that is, the immediate posting of respondent data on the web instead of waiting for the entire respondent pool to have submitted all data. This would accelerate quality control by enabling respondents to verify the data they submitted. Afterwards, we might then look for opportunities for additional savings through just-in-time and exception reporting.

OEI could then focus on inter-program data analysis and presentation, such as the “State of the Environment” report, which could be turned into a real-time, constantly updating web research service. OEI could focus on providing tools, such as a web-based general report writer that would front any program's data, or the entire database, of the agency, thus also supporting the creation of canned modifiable reporting software focused on a program's mission. OEI might then also focus on rapid prototyping and ad hoc data collection techniques that would assure that program offices faced minimal barriers in attaining their data needs or dealing with emergencies.

Finally, OEI could develop a front-end regulatory compliance and reporting screening tool especially valuable to small business. Such a tool would operate much like Turbo Tax and help an entity determine what regulatory programs might be of concern, and then, what data needed to be provided on what schedule, all without the need for high-priced legal and consulting services.

Overall, pushing EPCRA forward makes us realize it's long past time for EPA to be elevated into a

cabinet level agency so that EPA could fulfill another higher level of “service-oriented-architecture”. As part of that elevation, environmental expertise from other departments and agencies should be nested within EPA. In particular, major portions of NASA that focus on earth-sensing and environmental knowledge development and dissemination should be brought into OEI to strengthen its role in addressing climate change. This would also help further extend the scientific abilities and credibility of EPA and OEI. While we don't want to go down the road of Homeland Security and have EPA suffer a long bout of reorganization that might impede its regulatory and analytical mission, EPA needs to occupy a position of strength, service, and intellectual depth to handle the information challenges we now face.

In summation, I'd like to reinforce these themes I've briefly mentioned today; EPCRA set in motion a constellation of forces, including a new appreciation of the benefits of a redrawn balance of power, a respect for the analytical capacities of our citizens, and a reliance on modern technology. While each of these forces has come to hold new meaning since EPCRA was passed, especially because of the rise of the Internet, each new force has not been fully exploited. Additionally, the scope of each force has been shown to hold even more meaning and possibility than understood at the passage of EPCRA.

Thus we need to redouble our effort to fulfill EPCRA and provide an example for other federal and state agencies to show how the principles of the democratization of data can be applied. While we face the challenge that America needs to be reindustrialized, we can do so by increasing EPA's data collection, analytical, and information dissemination tasks to meet the needs of all sectors and help us move to greener products. Technology has improved beyond our wildest imaginations since EPCRA was passed. We need to think equally audaciously if we hope to bring EPCRA forward into the 21st century. Good luck!