Known Data Problems

On this page:


Overview

EPA manages a series of national information systems that include data flowing from staff in EPA and state/tribal/local offices. These data streams arrive into national systems in many ways. For example, some jurisdictions maintain their own databases, and then upload their data sets into EPA's systems. Others directly enter information into EPA systems, while in some cases, states/tribes/localities provide information on paper that EPA enters in the systems. Given this fairly complex set of transactions, occasional problems occur with the migration of data into the national systems. This page is meant to explain known data quality problems with larger sets of data. Concerns have been identified by EPA or state environmental agency staff. Where analysis indicates that data were not reported to EPA, ECHO users may want to contact the appropriate state environmental agency for information.

EPA places a high priority on ensuring the integrity of information in the national enforcement and compliance databases. Despite the confidence EPA has in the data, even a very small error rate means that some incorrect data will be apparent due to the large amount of information on the site and the technical issues described above. Please see About the Data for more information.

Additional data quality information may be available:

For errors on a particular facility report, please use the error correction process. To report large-scale problems with data, please send details via the Contact Us form. Problems with the functioning of the website itself are listed on the Website Known Issues page.

Top of Page


Primary Data Alerts

EPA and/or the state agencies that report data to EPA have identified some broad-scale data issues that may impact the completeness, timeliness, or accuracy of data shown in ECHO. These issues are highlighted below and are also included in the following program-specific sections.

Clean Air Act (CAA) Primary Data Alerts

Clean Air Act Data ECHO is displaying Clean Air Act data from the modernized national data management system, ICIS-Air. Some states are still establishing complete data transfer connections to ICIS-Air. States in which some ICIS-Air data may be outdated or incomplete are Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas. The ICIS-Air State summary (Excel, 16KB) lists the states and local agencies that send data by electronic transfer, along with a "Y" for each data family submitted. States/locals that enter data directly are not included on this list and may include some instances of outdated or incomplete data. EPA and state/local agencies are working toward transmission or entry of all data families. (Updated August 2016)

Clean Water Act (CWA) Primary Data Alerts

Arizona CWA Data Due to data migration issues between Arizona’s water quality compliance tracking database and EPA’s program data system (ICIS-NPDES), there may be data quality errors between November 2012 and July 2015. If you feel the compliance data is in error, please contact ADEQ at 602-771-4623. (Updated January 2017)
Kansas CWA Data Kansas and EPA are reviewing minor facility Clean Water Act data for inaccuracies after implementation of the e-reporting rule and are currently working on a fix to resolve the issue. A mix of multiple reporting frequencies (daily reporting, quarterly reporting, etc.) for some permits may make permittees appear out of compliance after the data transfer from their state system to ICIS-NPDES. ECHO Users should verify all data with Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prior to using it for any intended purpose. KDHE and EPA are working to resolve the issue. (Updated October 2017)
Missouri CWA Data Facilities appear in ECHO to be in noncompliance for failing to submit expected Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) and/or Programmatic Reports, which may or may not be the case. Users should verify this data with Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to using it for any intended purpose. Missouri DNR and EPA are working to resolve the issue. (Updated October 2017)
North Carolina CWA Data North Carolina is currently experiencing issues affecting the upload of data to the national program system ICIS that may cause NPDES-permitted facilities to erroneously be displayed in ECHO as being noncompliant for incomplete or deficient parameter reporting, or for failing to report data for entire outfalls. North Carolina is actively pursuing technical and programmatic solutions to resolve these problems. In the meantime, users are encouraged to contact the North Carolina Division of Water Resources to verify the compliance status of the state’s permitted facilities prior to taking any action based upon their depiction in ECHO. Please see North Carolina Data Alert Text(2 pp, 1088K, About PDF) for more detailed information. (Posted August 2017)
Oregon CWA Data The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality uses NetDMR to collect Discharge Monitoring Report data. Currently, all Oregon major individual NPDES permittees submit DMR data via NetDMR. ODEQ is working with nonmajor (minor) individual NPDES permittees to begin using NetDMR by the first half of 2018. ODEQ plans to implement NetDMR reporting for minor general NPDES permittees in the latter half of 2018. Prior to NetDMR implementation, ODEQ hand entered DMR data for major individual NPDES permits. ODEQ experienced data system quality control problems with DMR data beginning in April 2008. ECHO queries of these historical ICIS-NPDES data may contain erroneous Reportable Noncompliance/Significant Noncompliance flags. These erroneous historical data were documented by EPA in the 2016 State Review Framework report, and ODEQ has made plans to resolve the erroneous data. If ECHO users have questions or concerns, please contact Jim Billings, ICIS-NPDES Data Steward at Billings.Jim@deq.state.or.us. (Posted November 2017)


Vermont CWA Data

Vermont began flowing data to the national program system ICIS-NPDES in September 2012; however, the discharge monitoring reports from Vermont facilities prior to September 2012 are not available in ICIS-NPDES. The monitoring data was not entered into the legacy data system as expected prior to the migration of the VT data to ICIS-NPDES. Due to this incomplete data at the time of migration, some Vermont facilities appear to be in noncompliance for failing to submit discharge monitoring reports when in fact they are in compliance.

02/03/2017 addition: Some errors may be seen due to communication problems between the state data system and ICIS-NPDES. Vermont is working on upgrading its system to meet NPDES eReporting Rule requirements. If you have questions, please contact Mari.Cato@vermont.gov.
Virginia CWA Data Virginia has just recently begun the data flow to ICIS-NPDES for the non-major individual permits; some of the permit, Discharge Monitor Report, and facility compliance status data displayed on ECHO may not be accurate.  Data issues are in the process of being reviewed and will be corrected when identified. (Posted June 2017)
Washington CWA Data A small number of facilities appear in ECHO to be in noncompliance for failing to submit expected Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), which may or may not be the case. Users should verify these data with Washington Ecology via the  PARIS permit database prior to using it for any intended purpose. Washington Ecology is working to resolve the issue. (Updated August 2016)
Wyoming CWA Data Wyoming is experiencing issues affecting the upload of data to the national program system ICIS. Discharge Monitoring Report and facility compliance status data displayed on ECHO may not be accurate. Specifically, facilities may appear to be in noncompliance for failing to submit required discharge monitoring reports, which may or may not be the case. Wyoming is actively working to resolve the issue. (Updated October 2017)

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Primary Data Alerts

SDWA Violation Data Drinking water data shown in ECHO are based on violations reported by states to EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System. EPA is aware of inaccuracies and underreporting of some data in this system. We are working with the states to improve the quality of the data. For more information, see the SDWIS home page.

Top of Page


Air

General ECHO is displaying Clean Air Act data from the modernized national data management system, ICIS-Air. Some states are still establishing complete data transfer connections to ICIS-Air. States in which some ICIS-Air data may be outdated or incomplete are Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas. The ICIS-Air State summary(Excel, 16KB) lists the states and local agencies that send data by electronic transfer, along with a "Y" for each data family submitted. States/locals that enter data directly are not included on this list and may include some instances of outdated or incomplete data. EPA and state/local agencies are working toward transmission or entry of all data families. (Updated August 2016)
Louisiana In some circumstances, Clean Air Act enforcement actions taken by the state of Louisiana have been reported to EPA in duplicate (meaning that one enforcement action and penalty will appear twice on ECHO reports). Louisiana is working to correct this information. (Updated February 2018)
New York ECHO provides a listing of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs) under the CAA program. Normally an FCE consists of an on-site inspection preceded by a preparatory review of other compliance information that is submitted by the facility. While many states report FCEs on an ongoing basis as they are completed throughout the year, some states report all or most of their completed FCEs at the end of the fiscal year. NY reports the majority of its FCEs toward the end of the fiscal year. This is allowable under EPA policy, so does not indicate a data problem. However, when looking at facility reports for facilities in this state, keep in mind that on-site inspections may have been conducted, but may not have been reported to the national database yet. (Updated October 2011)
Texas CAA data for Texas is flowing at 99% for Title V Major sources.  Texas is currently developing the federally reportable violation (FRV) minor source data flow per CAA FRV policy.  (Updated November 2017)

Top of Page


Clean Water

General

Penalty Data - Prior the 2015 NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR 127), it was not a requirement that penalty data be reported to the national system. The rule requires authorized states and EPA Regions to share basic information regarding enforcement actions. This includes the type of enforcement action, information specific to final orders (administrative or judicial), penalty information, information regarding permit schedules or compliance schedules, and information regarding milestones or sub-activities identified in permit schedules or compliance schedules. States are now working to improve this data sharing with EPA. (Updated February 2018)

Single-Event Violations - Single-Event Violations (SEVs) include one-time events as well as violations with longer durations. These are violations that are generally not automatically flagged by the data system (e.g., inspection identified violations, sewer overflow, spill of industrial waste, discharges without a NPDES permit). These violation determinations are often manually generated by the authorized NPDES program, as opposed to violations that can be system created or generated (e.g., effluent exceedances of permit limits are automatically flagged by ICIS-NPDES). The 2015 NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR 127) requires authorized states and EPA Regions to share SEV data on all facilities (major and non-major). However, this requirement does not includes SEV data generated from construction stormwater inspections where the regulatory authority did not take a formal enforcement action. As noted in preamble to the final rule, EPA made this distinction based on the large number of facilities in this segment of the NPDES universe (approximately 200,000 new construction sites each year). See 22 October 2015; 80 FR 64079. Prior to the NPDES eRule, states only had to share data on SEVs from majors. Historically, SEV data sharing varies widely by state. States are now working to improve this data sharing with EPA. (Updated February 2018)

Locational Information - The NPDES Missing Lat/Long (PDF) (1 pp, 48K, About PDF) table provides state-by-state percentages of missing lat/long data for individual non-major facilities and outfalls. Without this locational information, 303d Listed Impaired Waters analysis cannot be done. (Updated February 2018)

Universe Data - The 2015 NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule (40 CFR 127) requires authorized states and EPA Regions to share basic facility information on all NPDES-permitted facilities. This data sharing is being phased in over time. In particular, states have until December 2020 to start collecting and sharing data on general permit covered facilities with EPA. During this implementation period, EPA’s national NPDES data system (ICIS-NPDES) will not have data on the entire universe of NPDES regulated facilities. (Updated February 2018)
Arizona

Due to data migration issues between Arizona’s water quality compliance tracking database and EPA’s program data system (ICIS-NPDES), there may be data quality errors between November 2012 and July 2015. If you feel the compliance data is in error, please contact ADEQ at 602-771-4623. (Updated January 2017)

During federal FY08, ADEQ did not populate EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) database with enforcement information. This means that fiscal year 2008 information about compliance and enforcement in Arizona is not available in national databases or the ECHO website. These data no longer appear on ECHO reports; users of the full downloadable datasets should be aware of this issue. (Arizona reported July 2009)

State of Arizona v. Johnson International resulted in a $12 million CWA settlement and State of Arizona v. Kiewit Western Co. resulted in an $80,000 CWA settlement. Both were completed during FY08 and resulted from storm water violations under the CWA. (Arizona reported July 2009)
California For California, the ICIS-NPDES database contains a significant number of Discharge Monitoring Report late-reporting violations showing as N = RNC/Category II - reportable noncompliance. In most cases, the reports were actually submitted by the discharger and entered in the legacy system, PCS, on a timely basis. Due to the reporting requirements in California, the report due dates exceeded that of most states and resulted in the data system incorrectly identifying late-reporting violations in the legacy system. These data no longer appear on ECHO reports; users of the full downloadable datasets should be aware of this issue. (Updated October 2011)
Delaware In some EPA region 3 states (Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia), some pH violations are in error. In certain permits, there are three different pH parameters used to express the pH limitation:
  1. parameter code 00400- pH with a limit of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units;
  2. parameter code 82581- number of excursions greater than 60 minutes at any time;
  3. parameter code 82582 - total minutes that exceed 446 minutes for a month.
These three pH parameters are used when continuous pH monitoring is required in a permit and are allowed as per 40 CFR 401.17, which states:
"...excursions from the range (6.0 - 9.0) are permitted subject to the following limitations: 1) the total time during which the pH values are outside the required range of pH values shall not exceed 7 hours and 26 minutes (446 minutes) in any calendar month (parameter code 82582); 2) no individual excursion from the range of pH values shall exceed 60 minutes (parameter code 82581)."
The pH limit of 6.0 to 9.0 can be exceeded in an effluent without violating the permit if it is not outside the range for more than 60 minutes at any one time or if the total minutes it is outside the range does not exceed seven hours and 26 minutes for the month. When the pH data from a facility's discharge monitoring report is entered in EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS), the actual pH value is entered, which may be outside the permitted range. As stated above, however, it may not be a permit violation, and PCS does not take this into account. ECHO displays PCS data and may indicate pH violations that were not violations. ​These data no longer appear on ECHO reports; users of the full downloadable datasets should be aware of this issue. (Updated October 2011)
Indiana The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) strives to ensure the NPDES monitoring results posted to ECHO are accurate, and IDEM works diligently to verify the results, but reporting irregularities and identified non-receipt violations often take additional time to research. IDEM continuously reviews these types of data irregularities to verify their accuracy and when appropriate contacts the NPDES permit holders to obtain revised results. The delay in getting these results posted to ECHO may at times cause non-receipt, compliance schedule milestone, and to a lesser extent, effluent exceedence violations to appear when they may not be entirely accurate. (Updated October 2017)
Kansas Kansas and EPA are reviewing minor facility Clean Water Act data for inaccuracies after implementation of the e-reporting rule and are currently working on a fix to resolve the issue. A mix of multiple reporting frequencies (daily reporting, quarterly reporting, etc.) for some permits may make permittees appear out of compliance after the data transfer from their state system to ICIS-NPDES. ECHO Users should verify all data with Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prior to using it for any intended purpose. KDHE and EPA are working to resolve the issue. (Updated October 2017)
Michigan The State of Michigan is experiencing issues affecting the transfer of data from the state database (MiWaters) to the federal database (ICIS-NPDES). Facility compliance status and discharge monitoring report and data displayed on ECHO may not be accurate especially for those permits issued prior August 2015. Specifically, facilities may appear to be in noncompliance for failing to submit required discharge monitoring reports and/or results for specific parameters, which may or may not be the case. The State of Michigan is actively working to resolve the issues. (Updated March 2018)
Missouri Facilities appear in ECHO to be in noncompliance for failing to submit expected Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) and/or Programmatic Reports, which may or may not be the case. Users should verify this data with Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to using it for any intended purpose. Missouri DNR and EPA are working to resolve the issue. (Updated October 2017)
New Jersey As of March 2018, New Jersey is reporting data into the national system of record (ICIS-NPDES). Some data flow issues are still being resolved. New Jersey was not supplying EPA with data about its Clean Water Act discharge program, as it did not convert to the current program data system (ICIS-NPDES) until March 2018. EPA copied New Jersey's data from the old data system on November 29, 2012. This allowed users to see the list of regulated facilities and associated historical activities; however, subsequent state activities were not being reported until recently. This may affect the full downloadable datasets.  (Updated April 2018)
North Carolina North Carolina is experiencing issues affecting the upload of data to the national program system ICIS that may cause NPDES-permitted facilities to erroneously be displayed in ECHO as being noncompliant for incomplete or deficient parameter reporting, or for failing to report data for entire outfalls. North Carolina is actively pursuing technical and programmatic solutions to resolve these problems. In the meantime, users are encouraged to contact the North Carolina Division of Water Resources to verify the compliance status of the state’s permitted facilities prior to taking any action based upon their depiction in ECHO. Please see North Carolina Data Alert Text(2 pp, 1088K, About PDF) for more detailed information. (Posted August 2017)
Oregon The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality uses NetDMR to collect Discharge Monitoring Report data. Currently, all Oregon major individual NPDES permittees submit DMR data via NetDMR. ODEQ is working with nonmajor (minor) individual NPDES permittees to begin using NetDMR by the first half of 2018. ODEQ plans to implement NetDMR reporting for minor general NPDES permittees in the latter half of 2018. Prior to NetDMR implementation, ODEQ hand entered DMR data for major individual NPDES permits. ODEQ experienced data system quality control problems with DMR data beginning in April 2008. ECHO queries of these historical ICIS-NPDES data may contain erroneous Reportable Noncompliance/Significant Noncompliance flags. These erroneous historical data were documented by EPA in the 2016 State Review Framework report, and ODEQ has made plans to resolve the erroneous data. If ECHO users have questions or concerns, please contact Jim Billings, ICIS-NPDES Data Steward at Billings.Jim@deq.state.or.us(Posted November 2017)
Vermont

Vermont began flowing data to the national program system ICIS-NPDES in September 2012; however, the discharge monitoring reports from Vermont facilities prior to September 2012 are not available in ICIS-NPDES. The monitoring data was not entered into the legacy data system as expected prior to the migration of the VT data to ICIS-NPDES. Due to this incomplete data at the time of migration, some Vermont facilities appear to be in noncompliance for failing to submit discharge monitoring reports when in fact they are in compliance. 02/03/2017 addition: Some errors may be seen due to communication problems between the state data system and ICIS-NPDES. Vermont is working on upgrading its system to meet NPDES eReporting Rule requirements. If you have questions, please contact Mari.Cato@vermont.gov(Updated February 2017)

Many Vermont facilities are erroneously shown as having DMR non-receipt violations in the period April through June 2003. Reports were received in a timely manner, and DMR data was entered by the state. However, the data was rejected by EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) due to computer communication problems. PCS contained a significant number of Discharge Monitoring Report non-receipt violations for Vermont. State records confirmed high compliance rates for facility DMR submittals, but delays in data entry and data transmittal to PCS cause them to be flagged for non-receipt. Similarly, compliance schedule reporting violations were often listed erroneously because of the lag time between receipt and data entry. These data no longer appear on ECHO reports; users of the full downloadable datasets should be aware of this issue. (Updated October 2011)
Virginia

Virginia has recently begun the data flow to ICIS-NPDES for the non-major individual permits; some of the permit, Discharge Monitor Report, and facility compliance status data displayed on ECHO may not be accurate.  Data issues are in the process of being reviewed and will be corrected when identified. (Posted June 2017)

In some EPA region 3 states (Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia), some pH violations are in error. In certain permits, there are three different pH parameters used to express the pH limitation:

  1. parameter code 00400 - pH with a limit of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units;
  2. parameter code 82581 - number of excursions greater than 60 minutes at any time;
  3. parameter code 82582 - total minutes that exceed 446 minutes for a month.
These three pH parameters are used when continuous pH monitoring is required in a permit and are allowed as per 40 CFR 401.17, which states:
"...excursions from the range (6.0 - 9.0) are permitted subject to the following limitations: 1) the total time during which the pH values are outside the required range of pH values shall not exceed 7 hours and 26 minutes (446 minutes) in any calendar month (parameter code 82582); 2) no individual excursion from the range of pH values shall exceed 60 minutes (parameter code 82581)."
The pH limit of 6.0 to 9.0 can be exceeded in an effluent without violating the permit if it is not outside the range for more than 60 minutes at any one time or if the total minutes it is outside the range does not exceed seven hours and 26 minutes for the month. When the pH data from a facility's discharge monitoring report is entered in EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS), the actual pH value is entered, which may be outside the permitted range. As stated above, however, it may not be a permit violation, and PCS does not take this into account. ECHO displays PCS data and may indicate pH violations that were not violations. These data no longer appear on ECHO reports; users of the full downloadable datasets should be aware of this issue. (Updated October 2011)
Washington

A small number of facilities appear in ECHO to be in noncompliance for failing to submit expected Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), which may or may not be the case. Users should verify these data with Washington Ecology via the  PARIS permit database prior to using it for any intended purpose. Washington Ecology is working to resolve the issue. (Updated August 2016)

Washington State CWA data currently has an issue where the primary SIC and primary NAICS codes are not being populated. The state is working to resolve the issue. (Updated October 2017)
West Virginia In some EPA region 3 states (Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia), some pH violations are in error. In certain permits, there are three different pH parameters used to express the pH limitation:
  1. parameter code 00400- pH with a limit of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units;
  2. parameter code 82581- number of excursions greater than 60 minutes at any time;
  3. parameter code 82582 - total minutes that exceed 446 minutes for a month.
These three pH parameters are used when continuous pH monitoring is required in a permit and are allowed as per 40 CFR 401.17, which states:
"...excursions from the range (6.0 - 9.0) are permitted subject to the following limitations: 1) the total time during which the pH values are outside the required range of pH values shall not exceed 7 hours and 26 minutes (446 minutes) in any calendar month (parameter code 82582); 2) no individual excursion from the range of pH values shall exceed 60 minutes (parameter code 82581)."
The pH limit of 6.0 to 9.0 can be exceeded in an effluent without violating the permit if it is not outside the range for more than 60 minutes at any one time or if the total minutes it is outside the range does not exceed seven hours and 26 minutes for the month. When the pH data from a facility's discharge monitoring report is entered in EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS), the actual pH value is entered, which may be outside the permitted range. As stated above, however, it may not be a permit violation, and PCS does not take this into account. ECHO displays PCS data and may indicate pH violations that were not violations. These data no longer appear on ECHO reports; users of the full downloadable datasets should be aware of this issue. (Updated October 2011)
Wyoming Wyoming is experiencing issues affecting the upload of data to the national program system ICIS. Discharge Monitoring Report and facility compliance status data displayed on ECHO may not be accurate. Specifically, facilities may appear to be in noncompliance for failing to submit required discharge monitoring reports, which may or may not be the case. Wyoming is actively working to resolve the issue. (Updated October 2017)

Top of Page


Hazardous Waste

General Closed/Inactive Facilities - Under the RCRA statute, no regulatory requirements mandate that sites that once handled hazardous waste notify that they have ceased waste management activities. As a result, the RCRAInfo database (which feeds ECHO) contains a listing of all regulated sites that at one point managed hazardous waste. The database includes both active sites and those that are no longer managing hazardous waste and/or are permanently closed. Including all sites assists EPA and the public in determining prior uses of land. EPA and the states developed a method for "inactivating" sites in RCRAInfo. The Facility Characteristics section of the Detailed Facility Report notes whether a RCRA site is considered active or inactive in RCRAInfo. This activity status is determined from the information most recently submitted by a site's representative or determined by EPA or state authority. Also, some states are still working to establish their inactive universes. Therefore, some sites shown to be "active" may not be actively managing waste. When interpreting the data, it is likely that a recent inspection, violation, or enforcement action is a good indicator that the site is actively managing waste.
California

Regulation of hazardous waste in California is a partnership between federal, state and local agencies. TSDFs and TSDFs that are also LQGs are regulated by the state; most LQGs and all SQGs are regulated by 83 local agencies. Data for RCRA inspections, violations, and enforcement actions conducted by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control is currently uploaded monthly from EnviroStor Data System to EPA's RCRAInfo. Data on inspections, violations and enforcement from California local agencies is uploaded weekly from CERS, which has been in transition to a full digital exchange and is approximately 50% loaded. 

LQG Specific: RCRAInfo includes a significant number of facilities self-identified as LQGs that have not been updated by business for decades. California does not use RCRAInfo as a management tool and does not routinely update it. The state has identified approximately 1,900 facilities as actual LQGs, while RCRAInfo identifies over 5,000 LQGs. Additionally, California has historically reported only the LQG inspections to RCRAInfo, not the SQG inspections. In fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the state’s automation project interfered with the complete reporting of LQG inspections and this resulted in the apparent decline in the number of inspections. California conducted well over 1,000 LQG inspections in both fiscal years 2012 and 2013. As California continues to fully automate reporting, all hazardous waste generator inspections, LQG and SQG, will be reported to RCRAInfo. In the last five fiscal years, California conducted over 30,000 hazardous waste generator inspections each year. (Updated April 2014)
Texas Some Texas compliance information is inaccurate - a large number of violation end dates (more than 500) for violations older than ten years have not been entered into the national system, therefore creating the appearance that some facilities' violations continue for a longer period of time than they actually do. This situation is due to problems in converting some codes from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality system to the national system, RCRAInfo. The state and EPA are working on a resolution. (Updated October 2011)

Top of Page


Drinking Water

General Drinking water data shown in ECHO are based on violations reported by states to EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System. EPA is aware of inaccuracies and underreporting of some data in this system. We are working with the states to improve the quality of the data. For more information, see the SDWIS home page.
North Carolina A data processing error in SDWIS has caused some enforcement actions to not be correctly associated with the violations they address. Therefore, the affected violations may incorrectly appear to be unaddressed. EPA has corrected the error in SDWIS, but the North Carolina database needs to be corrected. EPA will help North Carolina to correct their data, which will appear in future updates of SDWIS in ECHO. (Posted May 2011)
Washington A small number of water systems appear in ECHO to be in noncompliance for failing to monitor or report, which may or may not be the case. Users should verify these data with Washington State Department of Health prior to using it for any intended purpose. The Department is actively working to resolve the issue. (Posted January 2018)

 

Top of Page