ECHO Comments Archive
"This is a useful site and I think that it certainly serves
a purpose. I do think that an event should not be entered as a violation
until an NOV has been issued. It would also be a truer reflection
of a facility's environmental record, if the guidelines allowed
for corrections to be made within 60 or 90 days of a final decision
on a violation."
"I see this a great tool to review other operations and their
problems so we can pro-active instead of re-active. Hope, they keep
"I used the site. I like the interface, but once you find
that a business has a violation, it is impossible to determine what
the violation was for. In the case of ZIP code [xxx], [xxx] has
a violation and a fine. I was able to determine the violation was
of the Clean Air Act, but from there, I could not determine what
the violation was... It seems that if you are going to put this
informaiton out there, it should either be complete, or you should
put obvious messaging stating that you will only reveal thee has
been a violation, but not what it is and then provide a means to
do further investigation..."
"I found the information in the ECHO database to be accurate
and easily accessed. I support the use of this database for public
"...I want to congratulate you on the pilot of ECHO. ... I
think ECHO provides the public with an extremely valuable tool for
accessing important data. From the design perspective I found it
to be intuitive and extremely easy to use, even when looking up
codes with which I wasn't familiar. You should be proud of the results
of your hard work because the quality and thinking really shows."
"Just read about this in the newspaper. Was not aware of this
part of your site before! It is wonderful!!! Thank you!"
"This is a good format. It would be better if the inspection
records went back ten years, instead of just two."
"...The public and industry utilize NOV records to assess a facility's commitment to environmental stewardship. When a NOV is noted within a facility's record, the perception is formed that a facility was out-of-compliance with environmental limits for a period of time. However, [xxx] has complied with its NPDES permit, and this NOV represents no excursion to the environment. The current status of this website will not convey this information to those who are interested in [xxx]s environmental record.
Thank you for your consideration of the fact that this information
conveys misleading information to the public. [xxx] has resolved
our administrative errors on the DMR...
"I have reviewed this site with three towns in mind: [xxx].
I really appreciate having a site like this available. I found it
a bit difficult to find out what violations sites were cited for.
I was also interested in this site from a local regulatory perspective,
because [xxx] has a new hazardous materials control Bylaw, where
every company using, creating, or discarding hazardous materials
must register and pay a fee. Therefore, we are very interested in
everyone else's lists of companies they review or regulate... Thanks
for your hard work on this valuable Internet product!
"I like the site, but do find it to be written in highly technical
speak. Would be nice if it was a little more user friendly and not
"Great resource. I find it very useful for our work as consultants
on behalf of our clients."
"Congratulations on putting ECHO online! In just a few seconds,
I was able to get an assessment of the state of environmental compliance
in my town. Keep up the good work!"
"This new ECHO site is great, easy to use and very intuitive.
The information enclosed is very useful..."
"Why put this crappy data up on the web when OECA knows it
is wrong. How many addresses do you have to show on a given facility.
Show only one address."
"Used Zip code [xxx] for ECHO search, knowing that there are
at least two "superfund" sites in that zip code... Two
comments: 1)the circled 1 in the action column was not explained
ON THE PAGE. 2)It might be nice to assign a relative severity to
violations. Superfund sites should be differentiated from the gas
station anti-freeze spills. Politically a hot potato, though..."
"In order to make informed comments I need to better understand
this program. While the 19 page data dictionary contains some of
the information that I seek, it does not contain everything. I have
three questions that do not seem to be answered in the available
literature. First, how will the agency report a case where a non-compliance(s)
was alleged, the allegation was answered or challenged by a facility
at the time it was issued, but where the authority does not respond
in any way to that challenge? There is such a case in the records
you published for [xxx]. In this case, a seven-year-old allegation
is carried forward to the present in your record spite of the fact
that some or all of the issues were challenged. It would seem that
in such cases, your program would perpetuate unsubstantiated claims
of non-compliance indefinitely and with impunity. In a larger sense,
your customer, the public, is unaware of the facts and the allegations
have the weight of facts. Secondly, are there statute of limitation
issues with this data and, if so, how does the ECHO program propose
to handle them? For example, facilities are required to keep records
for 3 years. In the seven year old "unanswered allegation"
example above, the official record reflects information that a facility
may no longer feel is at issue and may no longer have records to
defend. Third, how does the agency plan to assign responsibility
for accuracy? Your federal register notice and the available literature
suggest that you will look only to the regulated community to resolve
issues of accuracy..."
|Top of Page | Previous | Next|