Facilities and enforcement case searches can both easily be limited by geography (EPA region, city, state, zip code, county, proximity to national border, and watershed). The tool also automatically produces maps that allow users to see the distribution of facilities across space.
This database uses a broad variety of data. Most of the data is collected by the EPA itself. Users are able to search for facilities regulated under the following systems:
When looking at individual facilities, the database provides detailed facility reports, enforcement case reports (civil and criminal), air pollutant reports, effluent charts, pollutant loading reports, effluent limit exceedances reports, CWA program area reports, permit limits reports, and other facility documents as available. The database provides easy ways to download and map the data. The database also allows users to narrow facilities searches using demographic data from EJScreen (also maintained by the EPA), the U.S. Census, and tribal land data.
Users can also look for information on federal administrative and judicial enforcement actions through an enforcement case search.
ECHO is maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its purpose is to provide comprehensive information about all of the facilities regulated by the EPA. It is connected directly to the EPA's internal enforcement record system, so information is currrent.
The Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Database, maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) Database. 2022. Available online: https://echo.epa.gov/ (accessed on 17 March 2022).
This supplementary legal document describes recommendations for storm- and waste-water management improvements for the Formosa petrochemical plant in Calhoun County, Texas. The text is a fairly standard drainage assessment. The author describes non-trivial discharge of pollutants out of the plant’s outfalls, which drain into local waters, and the inability of the plant’s systems to prevent flooding from even small storms. For some context on this, it is pretty standard to design a stormwater system to be able to drain the 100-year storm (that is, the storm with a 1% or less chance of occurring in any given year). Formosa’s Texas plant demonstrated the inability to convey even the 2-year storm.
Emphases are mine:
“Problem areas were identified based on the results from the outfall drainage studies provided by Formosa. Thus, all the results in the OPCC rely on those studies, uncertainities associated with those studies, and the assumptions made for those studies, some of which may or may not be appropriate as I pointed out in Supplement #2 [Page 4]” (3)
“The proposed improvements assume that the conveyance capacity of the problem areas is increased 100%, which would be able to handle twice as much flow that it currently does. The results from the Drainage Study are not conclusive as to what storm event Formosa’s system currently is capable of conveying. The report does mention that the system is not capable of conveying the 2-year storm, and “sometimes” not even the 1-year storm event.” (3)
“A 45% contingency is applied to the OPCC due to the uncertainties associated with underground utilities, likelihood of existence of low road crossings and need to replace those, groundwater impacts, other unknowns, and additional costs associated with engineering, etc. 45% is reasonable and in line with industry practices in my experience, especially given the large amount of unknown information available.” (4)
“My opinion from my July 9, 2018 report that “there have been and are still pellets and/or plastic materials discharges above trace amounts through Outfall 001” is further supported by the deposition testimony of Lisa Vitale, as representative for Freese & Nichols, Inc, that she and her colleagues have seen floating white pellets or small plastic pieces in Lavaca Bay and in the area near outfall 001 as part of her work on the receiving water monitoring program for Formosa’s TPDES permit...Ms. Vitale also testified that she told John Hyak of Formosa about these sightings as well as has sent him water samples with the pellets about five or six times, including at least one time prior to 2010. This, along with the June 2010 EPA Report I cited in my July Report, demonstrates to me that Formosa was aware of problems related to discharges of plastics from its facility since at least in 2010.” (6)
This registry allows for the tracking of the health effects of the 9/11 disaster. It is open to the public, where they can see the most common disorders and afflictions that those effected by 9/11 are dealing with today. The public can access this website and read up on the rates of lung infection, heart disease, PTSD, alcohol use, as well as the effect it has had on adolescent health. This registry was not only set up for the public use though, it is also used and produced by researchers. The researchers track the longterm health effects 9/11 has had on those exposed. The data also provides experts and researchers with the means to draw conclusions and analyses. Learning about the long term effects of 9/11 will raise awareness as well as allow for the understanding of how disasters of this caliber can effect those around it, in both long term and short term ways.
Researchers use this system extensively in order to find correlations between 9/11 and different repercussions as well as to collect and gather data about those who were exposed during 9/11. A unique aspect of this registry is that it contains more participants than any other registry of its kind, making it a great tool for researchers. The public also utilizes this information to study their own forms of various research as well as to gain knowledge on possible afflictions related to the event. The registry also follows up with participants with interviews and matches with other health registries. The website also offers resources to researchers to learn more about the research at hand and where to find other published reports about 9/11.
The registry is funded with federal tax dollars. New York City itself has funded specific projects for the registry research, for example the respiratory study of Lower Manhattan. The registry is hosted by NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene but is mostly paid for by federal taxes.
As mentioned, this site offers data on long term health afflictions of those exposed to 9/11. Yet the site also offers information about the participants in the registry. How they were selected, how many people are entered in the registry and where their exact locations were during the attacks. On top of providing data on the participants, the site also offers information on funding, as well as access to annual reports addressing the health impacts of 9/11. The site also gives access to those that the registry works with and collaborates with. The history behind the registry and the attacks are also provided. Sources for all data and a full bibliography is also available along with information about legal aspects of the health and compensation act, enrollee's confidentiality and thousands of other resources.