EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO)

Joan Heinz
Eli Lilly & Company

EPA is currently reviewing comments on its pilot project to present the public with enforcement data on 800,000 EPA regulated facilities via a Web-based tool called ECHO. At this time the tool includes the compliance history for facilities regulated under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and RCRA. Users may enter a zip code or city/state and receive a listing of facilities in that area or they may search by facility name or SIC code. The individual facility histories cover the last two years and are updated monthly. In addition to listing facility permits, inspection history and a compliance history, there is a demographic profile of the three miles surrounding the facility.

Companies have been reviewing the data related to their facilities and have several concerns with the pilot project, which are discussed below.

Data Integrity
A significant portion of the regulated community has found inaccuracies in the data for their facilities. For instance, compliance status may flow from state tracking systems used for other purposes and a historical Notice of Violation (NOV) may never be closed out in such a system even though a facility is currently in compliance. This would result in a noncompliance designation in ECHO. The database may also list a facility as noncompliant after an inspection even though the facility never received an NOV or is contesting the alleged violations. Furthermore, proposed penalties may be listed despite negotiations or appeals that could change the level of the penalty. Moreover, there does not appear to be a way to remove items from the database without a formal document of resolution like a Consent Order or Settlement Agreement. Resolution of a noncompliance issue at a state level may not necessarily conclude with this kind of formal document.

Data Presentation
Another troubling aspect of ECHO is EPA’s juxtaposition of a facility’s environmental compliance history with demographic data, suggesting a relationship between regulatory violations and risk to the public. In essence, ECHO reports on state and federal enforcement activities, but does not reflect the actual compliance posture of a facility, nor is there any indication of the nature and severity of a violation and whether human health and/or the environment were impacted. The joint presentation of compliance data with demographic data may mislead the public.

In addition, it is difficult to navigate between the “Data Dictionary” and the individual facility reports. Even sophisticated users may not understand the terms and acronyms, let alone the general public. For example, the use of High Priority Violator (HPV) in the air context and Significant Noncompliance (SNC) in the water and RCRA contexts may imply a more severe level of environmental threat than is actually the case.

Data Correction Process
There are no current procedures to ensure the integrity of the data nor is there a uniform correction process delineating such critical issues as timing of corrections and appeals of decisions. The ECHO correction process uses “data stewards” who are generally state agency personnel. Any user can request corrections though there is no way to validate the identity of the person submitting an error correction. The submitter should receive a response as to the correction status along with a reference number. It remains to be seen whether the correction process resolves errors to the satisfaction of the correction submitter. This is a critical issue since permitting authorities may use compliance data in the permitting process and incorrect data could influence permit issuance or timing.

Given the concerns noted above, environmental corporate counsel will be following the evolution of this database with great interest. The ECHO Web site is located at http://www.epa.gov/echo/about_site.html