1 / 16

Environmental Information Exchange Network

Michigan's pursuit of electronic Discharge Monitoring Reports (e-DMRs) addresses inefficiencies in the traditional mail-based reporting process. The new XML technology streamlines data submission, reducing the backlog of wastewater reports and improving data quality for better compliance and enforcement. Collaborating with states and the EPA, Michigan has successfully rolled out e-DMRs, enabling over 300 facilities to report online monthly. This initiative not only saves significant costs for the state and facilities but also enhances public access to environmental information, fostering a more effective wastewater program.

jadzia
Télécharger la présentation

Environmental Information Exchange Network

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. Environmental Information Exchange Network Electronic Submission of Wastewater Discharge Monitoring Reports

  2. Why did MI pursue e-Discharge Monitoring Reporting? Inefficient mail-based DMR submission process • Mailed DMRs required manual data coding • Duplicative manual data coding increased errors • 3-year backlog of daily wastewater reports • Engineers didn’t have good data access

  3. Problem Solution • Use a new technology, called eXtensible Markup Language (XML), for electronic DMR submissions • Develop a prototype national standard for this new technology • Get like-minded states & EPA to work together, with financial resources, to test: • prototype e-DMR XML schema • State Node • EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) • Security protocols and authentication process • Get beyond testing to implementation of e-DMRs with facilities

  4. E-DMR Project Partners • Pre-project schema development team included: • MI (lead), FL, WI, PA • financial backing - 20 states • ECOS, Ross & Associates, enfoTech • EPA • Challenge Grant Project States: • MI (lead), FL, WI, PA, IN, MN, TX, NY & RI • EPA Headquarters, Region II, III & V • enfoTech & Consulting, Inc.

  5. Data FlowFacility to State to EPA

  6. E-DMR Log In Screen

  7. Completed DMR

  8. Completed DMR – Ready to Send

  9. Electronic Signature

  10. Michigan Results By May 2004: • 300+ facilities per month submitted DMRs online • ~ 27 percent of MI’s facilities

  11. Wisconsin and Florida Results Two Other Project States Were Successful Too! • Wisconsin: • 2-3 dozen facilities use e-DMRs • Expect 80% compliance by 3-4 years • Florida: • 46 authorized to submit e-DMRs • Over 75 facilities applied to submit e-DMRs • Major users: Cape Canaveral Air Station (NASA & USAF), City of Orlando

  12. e-DMR States In Waiting • Alaska • California • Idaho • Indiana • Minnesota • Missouri • New Jersey • North Carolina • Texas • Virginia Challenge Grant States

  13. Benefits • State Water Divisions • Eliminate resources - Data entry by state staff • Improve data quality: lab => facility => State => EPA (eliminates data coding errors) • Improve response to environmental issues • Improve Michigan Wastewater program effectiveness (shift focus to Compliance & Enforcement) • Public • Increase public access to environmental information • Increase Water Division staff resources to respond to public/US EPA’s inquiries

  14. Benefits Comments from our Permitted Facilities • “Saves my compliance admin costs … streamlines the DMR reporting process” • “… provides immediate feedback of compliance status for proper actions” • “… will increase the amount of data accessible for trend analysis” • “… data entry errors are reduced …” • “Time saver … more traceable than paper … immediate confirmation of receipt”

  15. Michigan Annual Cost Savings • State Government Cost Savings (at full implementation - 1180 facilities) $250,000 - $500,000 • Facility Cost Savings (at least $2,000 saved per facility) $2,360,000* *(… and this may be low)

  16. More Information??? Michael Beaulac State Assistant Administrator Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 517-241-7808 beaulacm@michigan.gov

More Related