ECHO Comments Archive

"I have reviewed the ECHO Detailed Facility Report for -- , TX. Under the Compliance Summary Data section I would like to request the data EPA used to complete the section for CWA/NPDES Compliance status. The on-line report only shows the facility level status but it doesn't indicate the data used to generate such a status."
- Regulated entity user

"Fort Myers (Florida) News Press page 1B 12/4/02 "Internet site has data on EPA Violations" by Pamela Smith Hayford told me about your site. Excellent and helpful information."
- Unaffiliated user

"Very useful. Nice system"
- Commercial user

"It would be helpful to have data from more than the last 2 years. Going back 10 years would be very useful. As far back as the PCS data goes."
- State government user

"1. Currently a limit of only 500 records can be viewed/displayed in a single inquiry. Please increase or make the capacity for retrieval of records unlimited.

2. Some distinction should be made between administrative (reporting) violations and effluent violations which hold a real potential for ecological impact.

3. When there is no information in the databases for a selected data request, the listing in the summary reads "never" and/or "0". This is misleading. It should read "no data records returned" or "no data available". For example, when searching for inspections of some minor permitted facilities, the result is never. This suggests that the facilities have never been inspected when in truth they may have been inspected and that data not entered into the national database..."
- State government user

"I am very glad to see this site operational. I am using it as a vital component of Title V permit reviews and it helps me understand which plants need the most scrutiny.

Please continue to augment it with additional data such as emission inventories and copies of Title V permits."
- Local government user

"We encourage you to continue and update the ECHO system. Should help keep the public informed and save your organization time and effort in answering questions concerning inspections."
- Unaffiliated user

"Good idea - I have referred it to the EA in UK. But it is somewhat, as we scientists say, gobbledee gookish. A simpler statement about the infringements in plain English would be beneficial."
- Unaffiliated user

"This is an excellent resource site, easy to use and understand in laymans terms. I hope it becomes a permanent part of the EPA website."
- Regulated entity user

"I found the ECHO program helpful, up-to-date and easy to use. It is a valuable reference tool and I hope you will consider making this information a permanent offering online after the pilot period expires. Thank you."
- Commercial user

"This is great! It is hard to interpret the codes though. A key to the codes in the documentation would be helpful. It would be even better to have a description, in plain English, of violations and actions taken by the company and by EPA."
- Unaffiliated user

"This site is outstanding. A little more information would be helpful (ie, contact at site you audited.)"
- Regulated entity user

"I found that information I was looking at came from 1997 when veiwing the pages for -- which is in our neighborhood. So it seems to me the information being offered here is out dated. The type of emissions are not listed. The amounts are not listed.
An EPA inspection was listed from 9-2002 that was correct. But the site may be in error about the -- being in compliance? It seems only soft or how can I put it, the information doesn't tell us the truth... It lacks almost any information important to identifying amounts and kinds of pollutants. Violations they received. Inspection information. None of it. It says they are in compliance but I was recently told they were not? What good is this site then..."
- Public interest group user

"I think the idea of ECHO or putting [military] violations on the internet is a very bad idea. Even people in the Navy environmental field become confused about what a Navy NOV means. The public will be even more confused. I am afraid it will become a bean counting exercise. We all know the states administer the programs in different manners and simply counting NOVs is a bad way to compare. Already if someone wants to know about our NOV record they may ask under the FOI Act and get what they want. Why is this insufficient?
- Federal government user

"Great site, only one negative comment. This is a site to be viewed and understood by the public. Fiddling their way past all the permit numbers, etc (leave them in, they are very good) is tough enough. It would be very helpful to list the meaning of all abbreviations -on the same page- to improve readability by someone who is not used to working with these things. Other than that, very good. I like all the links, especially the maps."
- State government user

"I think having this comprehensive, compliance database is a great idea, however; without a legend explaining what the different acronyms stand for, it is near to impossible to decipher the information on the tables when you link to a specific facility.

Also, it is apparent that the information provided to EPA by the states are not entirely accurate. Company names are incorrect, and compliance status, in some cases, are wrong as well. Did EPA define the criteria for the various database fields?"
- Unaffiliated user

"First of all, I am pleased to see EPA making such an effort to provide information to the public. I think the more open a process becomes, the more likely the general public is to trust us and have faith in our work. I do have some concerns, however. First of all, you make many comments about how the site provides inspection and compliance information about various facilities. This site does provide such information, but only in a very limited and targeted capacity. Second, your information is not accurate...

Second, I believe the site should do a better job of clarifying the exclusive nature of the reporting actually covered. Current language suggests it is any and all inspection and enforcement activities for these sites, instead of the very narrow EPA programs actually posted.

Again, I like the accessibility of the information, and the overall intent of the site. My comments are meant to be constructive and intended to make it more useful.
- State government user

"Nice site. Searching by zip code may not bring up all sites within concerned proximity. What if I my zip code ends across the street. I didn't notice the ability to expand the search radius.

Would be good if you could link the violations or inspection results to the "Yes" answer in the box."
- Government user

"Hooray for the EPA and their new Echo Web site. Citizen monitoring is an important element in protecting our communities from noxious poisons and other pollution. Easy access to information about what is going on in our communities is an important democratic principle. I applaud the EPA in providing a useful tool for protecting public health and safety. What we don't know truly can hurt us."
- Unaffiliated user

"Data accuracy is very important. Some of our sites are not listed correctly. I will have our -- director follow up on this."
- Regulated entity user

"This is a great tool! However, there are some cumbersome aspects. For example, there are too many "search" buttons... How about making just a single questionnaire, fill out everything you want (you could have a choice in some categories) and then a single "submit" button?
Also, I had trouble finding some listings for --. The size limit (large operations only) was part of it, but it seems that I could get listings using one type of criteria but not with another. Sorry, it's been a few days since I used this (couldn't figure out how to submit comments) so I don't recall the details.
It would be great if smaller operations were listed as well. For example, I was searching for info on a municipal water supply company --. They service 300-400 homes currently (and are proposing to expand). This is small by other community standards, but ANY municipal-type water source could be important. Similarly, ANY industry which uses chemicals that are pollution threats could be important, even if small (e.g., any paper mill, leather tanning company...). Therefore, perhaps broadening the size of listings in some categories would be useful."
- Federal government user

"Your new tool is thorough and easy to use. I have little experience with the environmental compliance field other than some time spent in the -- where I maintained the waste disposal program for my organization but I found the information easy to navigate and the links providing data description made the data easy to understand. I think this will be an invaluable tool for those organizations and businesses that are directly involved in the inspection and environmental compliance areas."
- Unaffiliated user