About the Data

EPA National databases (containing state and federal data) used in ECHO:

• Air Facility System (AFS) - CAA
• Permit Compliance System (PCS) - CWA NPDES
• Integrated Compliance Information System - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) - CWA NPDES
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) - RCRA

Federal-only databases used (these databases are used to provide additional information):

• Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) - multi-statute enforcement data
• National Compliance Database (NCDB) - contains records about the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act

Each database is copied monthly into the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) system and made available in the ECHO Web interface to allow Internet access to integrated data. Data is updated monthly, normally around the third week of each month. Each facility report generated is date stamped.

Searches return a list of relevant facilities, each linked to its Detailed Facility Report, which shows when available:

• if a facility has been inspected/evaluated,
• if violations have been found,
• whether enforcement actions have been taken, and
• contextual information about the demographics surrounding the facility.

Comments regarding the data can be made directly from the Detailed Facility Report.

Data Completeness
EPA requires more information to be entered into the databases on larger facilities. Data entry at smaller facilities is required in some instances, but not required in other instances. Therefore, the completeness of the data in the program systems is much higher for larger facilities. In the AFS system, these larger facilities are listed as active, "Federally-reportable." In the PCS and ICIS-NPDES systems, these facilities are listed as active, "major" permittees. In the RCRAInfo system, these facilities are listed as Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDs) and Large Quantity Generators (LQGs). Information on smaller facilities is reflected to the extent the data are available in the databases listed above; however, it may be necessary to request additional records directly from state officials to see a complete picture for smaller facilities.

Because it is not required, not all states use EPA's databases, the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS), to enter and automatically track CWA NPDES violations at non-major facilities. However, several states are tracking at least individually permitted non-major facilities in PCS or ICIS. EPA's calendar year 2006 non-major limit and DMR chart (PDF, 27KB) can help site users determine whether compliance information displayed on ECHO for non-major facilities is complete. (Note: DMRs stands for Discharge Monitoring Reports.)

• More State Data
• Guide to Regulated Facilities
• Data Entry Requirements

Time Period of Data Displayed
In general, ECHO displays the past five years (twenty quarters) of data from the date that the information was extracted from the program systems listed above. Some data fields, including The results "Quarters in Violation" column, and the Detailed Facility Report "Three Year Compliance Status by Quarter" section display the last three years (twelve quarters) of data. Some data comes to EPA in quarters (for example, some PCS data). In these cases, the last twelve (or twenty) complete quarters are included. In some situations, violations are noted in the program systems after the twelfth (or twentieth) quarter ends (such as in RCRAInfo). In these cases, we show the last twelve (or twenty) complete quarters plus anything more recent than the last full quarter.

Inspections
Smaller facilities may receive inspections (also referred to as compliance evaluations) less frequently than every five years - and thus may appear uninspected in the ECHO database. EPA and the states also determine compliance through means other than inspections or evaluations. For example, many facilities are required to self-report certain violations. Also, inspections for smaller CAA and CWA facilities may only be tracked in a state's database and not the federal database.

Enforcement Actions
The database shows EPA or state enforcement actions. Enforcement actions that have not been filed are not publicly available. Not all violations receive formal enforcement actions. Violations that are minor, short in duration, or quickly corrected by the facility may not warrant formal enforcement action. Also, action may have been taken prior to the five years of data shown in ECHO. The relevant state environmental agency may have additional information.

To the extent possible, this Web site presents the information as reported into Federal databases. However, users must note that some information is required, and some is put in voluntarily by states. Understanding the mix of required and non-required data will help you interpret whether the reports included are complete, or whether states or state databases should be consulted for additional information. Follow this link to a table showing what information is required to be entered in the systems (Data Entry Requirements Table). To use the table, examine a particular Detailed Facility Report, determine the type of facility indicated on the report, and then refer to the table to determine whether the data is required. For example, violations occurring at CWA minor facilities are not reported by all states, thus may not be apparent in ECHO. Note that EPA does receive summary noncompliance data for CWA minors, which is discussed in EPA's 2004 and 2005 report on non-compliance for NPDES individual non-major permits (pdf, 96KB).

Compliance assurance and enforcement activities related to Federal environmental laws are conducted by EPA, authorized or delegated states, Tribal and local jurisdictions. Each level of government has been working together for many years to ensure that information in national systems is accurate. The migration of data from many jurisdictions to multiple national program databases is a challenging task. Some state and local jurisdictions directly enter data to national databases, while others maintain their own databases and transfer data to EPA through batch processing. Under both approaches, many steps are taken to ensure that the data are of high quality.

• Each national database maintains standards and procedures for ensuring data integrity on a day-to-day basis. Through periodic analysis, conference calls and national meetings, database managers at all levels of government work to ensure quality information.
• EPA pilot-tested public access for approximately 600 facilities in 1998 by placing such data on the Internet. Statistics compiled under this pilot effort indicated a high level of data quality.
• EPA pilot-tested public access for more than 40,000 facilities in four states starting in January 2001. Results of this larger pilot indicated a high degree of data quality.
• EPA and the states/tribes/locals conducted a special review period for the information released in ECHO in order to identify problems and correct data from March 2002 to November 2002. Results from the review indicated a high level of data quality.
• During the ECHO public comment period which ran between November 20, 2002 and March 31, 2003, less than 1% of the reports within ECHO were found to have data quality errors. For more information about the data quality rates found during the comment period, please review the ECHO Public Comment Period Summary and Response to Comments (PDF, 2.05MB).
• Isolated data problems that are identified over time are listed in the Known Data Problems section. In most cases, these problems are associated with the conversion of new software or databases. For example, when EPA or states update to new technology, it is possible that information does not enter the system immediately
• If you identify errors while using this Web site, please take advantage of the error correction reporting feature. You will receive confirmation of the action that is taken to resolve the error.

The reports posted below explain the results of two random audits conducted by the EPA Office of Compliance. The inspection audit received 100% participation from states and EPA regions, while the enforcement action audit received very close to 100% participation. The audits assessed inspection and formal enforcement action data in national databases (Air Facility System (AFS), Permit Compliance System (PCS), Resource Conservation Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo), and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) for federal enforcement actions) and derived statistically valid conclusions about the data. Data examined came from these facility universes: Clean Air Act federally reportable stationary sources, Clean Water Act active major dischargers, and RCRA treatment, storage and disposal facilities and large quantity generators.

The inspection audit found that 87% of facilities in the universes examined in AFS and PCS had completely accurate data in key fields on state and EPA inspections in fiscal year 2001, and 97% of facilities in the universe examined in RCRAInfo had completely accurate data in key fields on state and EPA inspections in fiscal year 2001. Missing inspections accounted for the majority of errors in AFS and PCS. For the facilities that had inspections in the data systems, the inspection information was accurate more than 95% of the time. Also, EPA believes that data has improved since the inspection audit, due to ECHO data correction efforts. (Based on the survey methodology used, EPA is 95% confident that these accuracy rates are within 4% of the true value for AFS and PCS, and within 2% of the true value for RCRAInfo.)

The enforcement action audit found that 95% of facilities in the universe examined in AFS, 93% of major facilities in PCS, and 97% of facilities in the universe examined in RCRAInfo had completely accurate data in key fields on state and EPA formal actions in fiscal year 2003. (Based on the survey methodology used, EPA is 95% confident that these accuracy rates are within 2% of the true values.)

Results of Inspection Audit (PDF, 1.15 MB)
Results of Enforcement Action Audit (PDF, 361 KB)