9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 1/13

Menu

Log In Contact Us Known Data Problems

Related Topics

About the Data (http://epa.gov/resources/echo­data/about­the­data)

State Comments on Frozen Data (http://epa.gov/resources/echo­data/statecomments­frozen­data)

Error Correction Process(http://epa.gov/help/how­to­report­error)

Website Known Issues(http://epa.gov/resources/general­info/website­knownissues)

On this page:

Overview (#overview)

Primary Data Alerts(#alerts)

Air (#caa)

Clean Water (#cwa)

Hazardous Waste (#rcra)

Drinking Water (#sdwa)

Abbreviations(#acronyms)

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.
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 2/13

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 (http://epa.gov/resources/echo­data/aboutthe­data) for more information.

Additional data quality information may be available:

The State Review Framework Recommendations Report

(http://epa.gov/oversight/state­review­framework/tracker­recommendations) provides

state­by­state findings based on regular, comprehensive state reviews

(http://www2.epa.gov/compliance/state­review­framework­compliance­and­enforcementperformance) . For the Recommendations Report, search for a state and statute

to see all recommendations ­ data quality concerns tend to be addressed

under element numbers 1­3.

Comments provided by states during an annual data verification process are

posted on the State Comments on Frozen Data (http://epa.gov/resources/echodata/state­comments­frozen­data) page.

For errors on a particular facility report, please use the error correction process

(http://epa.gov/help/how­to­report­error) . To report large­scale problems with data,

please send details via the Contact Us(http://epa.gov/resources/general­info/contact­us)

form. Problems with the functioning of the website itself are listed on the

Website Known Issues(http://epa.gov/resources/general­info/website­known­issues) page.

Primary Data Alerts

EPA has identified some broad­scale 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 program­specific

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, ICIS­Air. Some states are still

establishing data transfer connections to ICIS­Air. States whose

data in ICIS­Air are not being updated are Michigan, Mississippi,

New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Nevada,

and New Hampshire. Data for these states were migrated from the

retired system, are frozen, and reflect data as of October 17, 2014.

EPA is working with these states to help prepare them for future

database refreshes.

Clean Water Act (CWA) Primary Data Alerts
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 3/13

EPA and states completed a significant data modernization project in late 2012.

This allowed EPA to turn off the old data system, but some data flow issues

prevent ECHO from showing a complete listing of violations and enforcement

activity. These are described below.

Arizona

CWA

Data

Arizona is not supplying EPA with data about its Clean Water Act

NPDES Program due to issues with development of the data flows

from the State database to ICIS­NPDES. EPA migrated Arizona's

data from Legacy PCS to ICIS­NPDES on November 29, 2012. This

allows users to see the list of regulated facilities and associated

historical activities, however, subsequent DMR data and state

inspection/enforcement activities are not being reported. Arizona

began flowing data to ICIS­NPDES in September 2013. They have

projected to complete their data flow to ICIS­NPDES by the end of

December 2014.

Missouri

CWA

Data

Missouri migrated to ICIS­NPDES in 2011; however, Missouri is not

sending required information about inspections and enforcement

actions that are being taken by the state. Missouri is in the process of

implementing a method to provide this information. Facilities appear

in ECHO to be in noncompliance for failing to submit expected

discharge monitoring reports. In reality, EPA believes a majority of

those facilities have submitted DMRs and that a majority of these

violations are erroneous.

New

Jersey

CWA

Data

New Jersey is not supplying EPA with required data about its Clean

Water Act discharge program as it has not converted to the current

program data system (ICIS­NPDES). EPA copied New Jersey's data

from the old data system on November 29, 2012. This allows users to

see the list of regulated facilities and associated historical activities;

however, subsequent state activities are not being reported.

Vermont

CWA

Data

Vermont began flowing data to ICIS­NPDES in September 2012;

however, the monitoring reports from Vermont facilities prior to

September 2012 are currently not available in ICIS­NPDES. The

monitoring data was not entered into PCS as expected prior to the

migration of the VT data to ICIS­NPDES. Due to this incomplete

data in PCS at the time of migration, ECHO is reporting many

Vermont facilities to be in non­compliance for failing to submit

discharge monitoring reports when in fact they are in compliance.

Vermont DEC is working closely with the EPA to resolve the

missing data issues regarding the older 2012 DMRs, but to date, this

issue is not resolved. If you have questions, please contact

Amber.vanZuilen@state.vt.us(mailto:Amber.vanZuilen@state.vt.us) .

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Primary Data Alerts

SDWA

Violation

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
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 4/13

Data 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

(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/) .

Air

General

ECHO is displaying Clean Air Act data from the

modernized national data management system, ICIS­Air.

Some states are still establishing data transfer

connections to ICIS­Air. States whose data in ICIS­Air

are not being updated are Michigan, Mississippi, New

York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,

Nevada, and New Hampshire. Data for these states were

migrated from the retired system, are frozen, and reflect

data as of October 17, 2014. EPA is working with these

states to help prepare them for future database refreshes.

In some circumstances, states enter their CAA data quarterly.

Thus, there could be a two­ to three­month lag in posting this

information in ECHO.

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 October 2011)

Mississippi

Based on July 2007 EPA comprehensive state data review of FY05

data, some violations that occur at facilities are not reported to the

national system. Based on July 2007 annual analysis of national

system data, EPA believes this applies to FY06­07 data, as well.

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality is intensively

reviewing the compliance and enforcement process and is

developing a Process Improvement Plan that addresses all aspects

of MDEQ's compliance and enforcement processes in all media.

The Plan will include revision of the existing business processes

where necessary, documentation of the revised business processes,

development of associated SOPs, and development of a

comprehensive training plan. The complete process will take 18 to

24 months to complete. However, MDEQ is committed to

implementing the revised process for each aspect as it is

developed.

ECHO provides a listing of Full Compliance Evaluations (FCEs)

under the CAA program. Normally an FCE consists of an on­site

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
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 5/13

New York 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 on­site inspections may have been conducted, but may not

have been reported to the national database yet.(Updated October

2011)

Texas

Due to an extensive data cleanup project in Texas, Texas Clean Air

Act (CAA) data were not updated from June­September 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

November­January timeframe, and corrections to source

classification will be completed by September 2007. (Updated

August 2007)

Clean Water

General

Penalty Data ­ Many states do not report penalty data to the

national system. It is not an EPA requirement that CWA penalty

data be reported, so this does not indicate a data quality problem.

Users should be aware that the relevant state (or in some cases,

EPA Region) would need to be contacted for this

information. (Updated October 2011)

Single­Event Violations ­ The bulk of violations shown for CWANPDES major facilities result from the automatic calculation of

compliance status performed by the national program database

(PCS or ICIS­NPDES) by comparing the permitted limits with the

monthly effluent measurements supplied by the facility. Other

CWA violations, such as those detected by facility inspections,

are called "single­event violations." EPA has included singleevent violations in the ECHO site, but notes that only a small

number of EPA regions and states are putting these data in the

system. EPA is working on this issue so that the database can be

fully populated in the future.

Locational Information ­ The NPDES Missing Lat/Long (PDF)

(http://epa.gov/system/files/latlongmissing.pdf) (1 pp, 48K, About

PDF (http://www2.epa.gov/home/pdf­files) ) table provides state­bystate percentages of missing lat/long data for individual non­major

facilities and outfalls. Without this locational information, 303d

Listed Impaired Waters analysis cannot be done.

Universe Data ­ EPA national systems currently do not have data

on the entire universe of NPDES regulated facilities. In particular,

permit and monitoring data from many construction stormwater

sites are not in ICIS. (Posted November 2011)
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 6/13

Arizona

Arizona is not supplying EPA with data about its Clean Water Act

NPDES Program due to issues with development of the data flows

from the State database to ICIS­NPDES. EPA migrated Arizona's

data from Legacy PCS to ICIS­NPDES on November 29, 2012.

This allows users to see the list of regulated facilities and

associated historical activities, however, subsequent DMR data

and state inspection/enforcement activities are not being reported.

Arizona began flowing data to ICIS­NPDES in September 2013.

They have projected to complete their data flow to ICIS­NPDES

by the end of December 2014. (Updated November 2014)

During federal FY08, ADEQ did not populate EPA's Permit

Compliance System (PCS) database with enforcement

information. This means that information about compliance and

enforcement in Arizona is not available in national databases, or

the ECHO website. (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 ICIS­NPDES database contains a significant

number of Discharge Monitoring Report late­reporting 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 late­reporting violations in the legacy

system. (Updated October 2011)

Colorado

Colorado reports enforcement and penalty data for NPDESregulated entities and facilities to ICIS­NPDES. Based on a July

2009 review of the State Review Framework CWA Multi­State

Report made available on ECHO, the state is aware that penalty

data are not appearing in the report. (Updated July 2009)

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
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 7/13

Delaware

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. (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 non­receipt 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 non­receipt, compliance schedule milestone, and to a

lesser extent, effluent exceedence violations to appear when they

may not be entirely accurate. (Posted October 2011)

Michigan

In Michigan, PCS contains a significant number of Discharge

Monitoring Report non­receipt violations. In most cases, the

reports were actually submitted on time but were either not

received by data entry staff or not able to be coded. EPA is

working with the state to correct this situation.

Missouri

Missouri migrated to ICIS­NPDES in 2011; however, Missouri is

not sending required information about inspections and

enforcement actions that are being taken by the state. Missouri is

in the process of implementing a method to provide this

information. Facilities appear in ECHO to be in noncompliance

for failing to submit expected discharge monitoring reports. In

reality, EPA believes a majority of those facilities have submitted

DMRs and that a majority of these violations are erroneous.

(Updated November 2014)

New Jersey is not supplying EPA with required data about its

Clean Water Act discharge program as it has not converted to the

current program data system (ICIS­NPDES). EPA copied New
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 8/13

New Jersey Jersey's data from the old data system on November 29, 2012.

This allows users to see the list of regulated facilities and

associated historical activities; however, subsequent state

activities are not being reported. (Posted December 2012)

Vermont

Vermont began flowing data to ICIS­NPDES in September 2012;

however, the monitoring reports from Vermont facilities prior to

September 2012 are currently not available in ICIS­NPDES. The

monitoring data was not entered into PCS as expected prior to the

migration of the VT data to ICIS­NPDES. Due to this incomplete

data in PCS at the time of migration, ECHO is reporting many

Vermont facilities to be in non­compliance for failing to submit

discharge monitoring reports when in fact they are in compliance.

Vermont DEC is working closely with the EPA to resolve the

missing data issues regarding the older 2012 DMRs, but to date,

this issue is not resolved. If you have questions, please

contact Amber.vanZuilen@state.vt.us

(mailto:Amber.vanZuilen@state.vt.us) . (Updated November 2014)

Many Vermont facilities are erroneously shown as having DMR

non­receipt 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. These data no longer appear on ECHO

reports; users of the full downloadable datasets should be aware

of this issue.(Updated October 2011)

PCS contains a significant number of Discharge Monitoring

Report non­receipt violations for Vermont. State records confirm

high compliance rates for facility DMR submittals but delays in

data entry and data transmittal to PCS cause them to be flagged

for non­receipt. Similarly, compliance schedule reporting

violations are often listed erroneously because of the lag time

between receipt and data entry. For questions about CWA data in

VT, please contact Ginny.Little@state.vt.us

(mailto:Ginny.Little@state.vt.us) .

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
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 9/13

Virginia

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. (Updated October

2011)

Washington

A number of EPA­authorized CWA NPDES facilities in Region

10 do not have up­to­date permit limits entered in PCS. In April

2010 Washington launched its new data system Permit and

Reporting Information System (PARIS). PARIS is unable to

communicate with PCS or ICIS­NPDES; however, it is

anticipated that by November 2012, PARIS will be flowing data

to ICIS­NPDES. The public can access and search PARIS

(https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wqreports/public/f?

p=110:300:3405580521630697) . Questions regarding the status of

Region 10's data management plan should be directed to

Kimberly Ogle at 206­553­0955. Questions regarding the status of

the state data management plan should be directed to Sharon

O'Connor at 360­407­6073. (Updated November 2011)

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
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 10/13

West

Virginia

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. (Updated October

2011)

Wisconsin

Wisconsin does not show enforcement action data. A data entry

problem may exist. (Updated October 2011)

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.
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 11/13

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

self­identified 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)

Drinking Water

Drinking Water system linkages to EPA's Facility Registry

Service and any applicable Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,

or hazardous waste facilities are unavailable. This means

Drinking Water systems appear as stand­alone facilities with

no Facility Registry Service ID number. Additionally, some

search options that rely on Facility Registry Service

information, like the All Data County search, will not work

for Drinking Water data. Linkages are expected to be
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 12/13

General restored by the end of November 2014. (Updated October

2014)

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

(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/drink/sdwisfed/) .

Colorado

An automated data processing error may have caused some

resolving actions to not be correctly associated with the violations

they address. Therefore, the affected violations may incorrectly

appear to be unresolved. Colorado is further investigating this

issue. (Posted May 2011)

Mississippi

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Radionuclides Rule, all

community water systems are responsible for monitoring for the

presence of radioactive substances in their drinking water and

reporting the results to the state. The State of Mississippi provides

water testing services to all of its public water systems. Because

Mississippi has to date supplied EPA with valid initial monitoring

results for only a small number of its community water systems,

almost all of the CWSs in the state have been in violation of the

monitoring requirements of the Radionuclides Rule since early

2008. (Updated October 2011)

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)

Abbreviations

Abbreviations used:

AFS Air Facility System ­ Clean Air Act Stationary Source data

CAA Clean Air Act

CWA Clean Water Act

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report (CWA program)

FY Federal Fiscal Year

HPV High Priority Violator (CAA program)

ICISNPDES

Integrated Compliance Information System for NPDES data ­ Clean

Water Act direct discharge data (modernized system)

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (under CWA)

PCS Permit Compliance System ­ Clean Water Act direct discharge data
9/9/2015 Known Data Problems | ECHO | US EPA

https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo­data/known­data­problems 13/13

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRAInfoRCRA ­ hazardous waste data

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS

Safe Drinking Water Information System ­ SDWA water system,

violation, and enforcement action data

SNC Significant Noncompliance (CWA/RCRA programs)

Last updated August 13, 2015