Data Alerts

Michigan RCRA Data
Data from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to EPA for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle C program, specifically hazardous waste and used oil, is not current for compliance and enforcement data. Due to changes by EPA in the data translation procedures, MDEQ has not translated the compliance and enforcement data since May 5, 2006, while the translation program is re-written. Consequently, evaluations, violation, and compliance action data that can be viewed on the MDEQ web page (http://www.deq.state.mi.us/WDSPI/) will not be available on ECHO until fiscal year 2009. Also, any corrections made to the MDEQ database will not be displayed on ECHO before that time. However, handler (site) data is translated monthly from MDEQ into the EPA national program database, RCRAInfo, which then populates ECHO.

Oregon RCRA Data
Oregon is a translator state for sending compliance monitoring and enforcement data from its own database into RCRAInfo, which feeds ECHO. Due to version changes in RCRAInfo, Oregon data has not been updated in RCRAInfo since June 2006 for CM&E data. Some information has been manually updated; however, the majority of information may not be accurate. As program work is continuing between Oregon and EPA headquarters to get this translation of information working smoothly, EPA hopes to have the CM&E data updated and accurate by mid-November 2007.

Clean Air Act Compliance Status and Violations
ECHO provides a High Priority Violator flag that signals when more serious compliance problems have been identified. This on/off flag does not provide details about alleged violations. However, ECHO also provides violation/compliance status data, which provides some detail about the nature of alleged violations. Violation status data should always be reported when a High Priority Violator determination is made, and should also be reported for many violations that do not rise to the level of High Priority Violations. It is possible for specific violations to be resolved (ended) while the High Priority Flag remains on. EPA's review of the data in ECHO indicates that the High Priority Violator flag is normally reported by states. EPA's review of the violation status data, namely the CAA subprogram violated and the pollutant in violation, indicates that errors of omission exist in many states. These errors of omission could leave the ECHO user with the impression that a facility has no violations, when in fact, violations have been determined. The information below is provided to inform ECHO data users about whether to expect to see violation status data in ECHO reports. Violation data appear to be missing or incomplete in AK, AZ, CA, FL, HI, LA, ME, MI, MT, NE, NJ, NM, NV, TX, WA, WY. The following states/territories report a limited amount of violation data: AL, CO, CT, ID, IL, IN, MA, MN, MO, NH, OR, RI, TN, UT, VA. The following states/territories report some violation data: AR, DE, GA, KY, MD, NC, OH, SD, WV. The following states/territories frequently report violations: IA, MS, NY, OK, PA, PR, SC, WI. Due to a small number of regulated sources, EPA's analysis for DC, KS, ND, VI, VT was inconclusive in regard to violation reporting. EPA is working with the states to improve the consistency of reporting CAA violations. ECHO users interested in CAA violation data within a state that infrequently reports CAA violation status to EPA's national database may consider researching other available information (for example, state Web sites or state-published information). (Based on FY2007 data.)

Texas CAA Data Cleanup Impact on ECHO
Due to an extensive data cleanup project in Texas, Texas Clean Air Act (CAA) data were not updated from June-September 2006. Significant improvements are reflected with the October 2006 data update. However, corrections to several data flows (e.g., formal enforcement actions, stack tests, etc.) occurred during the November-January timeframe, and corrections to source classification will be completed by September 2007.

Oregon CWA Data
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is implementing an approved workplan to assume data management responsibilities for Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) facilities where the state is the permitting authority. EPA's data entry for 71 major facilities ceased on August 31, 2004, and no subsequent data have been entered into the national program database, Permit Compliance System (PCS), for Oregon as of October 2006 (the NPDES program necessitates monthly data entry). Oregon DEQ and EPA have agreed on a plan whereby all permit, Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR), and compliance and enforcement data for these facilities will be current and complete by February 2008. While the data is being brought up to date, DMR non-receipt and significant non-compliance will not be tracked for these facilities by PCS. As a pilot project, the ECHO Detailed Facility Report SNC/RNC Status line will display a new "U" code for the applicable quarters, indicating that the facility-level compliance status for these facilities is undetermined by PCS. Oregon DEQ, however, will be tracking the compliance status of these facilities during this time. Facility-level compliance status from Oct. 1, 2005, to the present will be displayed on ECHO for specific groups of facilities after all data are entered for a group of facilities and the compliance determination process is completed in PCS. Effluent violations based on NPDES permit parameters will be available on the date of the next ECHO data update after they are entered into PCS.

Michigan CWA Data
In Michigan, PCS contains a significant number of Discharge Monitoring Report non-receipt violations. In most cases, the reports were actually submitted on time but were either not received by data entry staff or were not codable. EPA is working with the state to correct this situation.

This page is intended to provide information on broad-scale data issues that may impact the completeness, timeliness, or accuracy of data shown in ECHO. For other data quality issues, please see the Known Data Problems section.