Federal Query Results List Facilities With Significant Violations
Facility searches present five years of enforcement data while database documentation notes that not all violations receive formal enforcement actions.
Federal compliance tracking records show 53 facilities flagged for significant noncompliance or violation in six of seven core central Ohio counties.
According to federal database documentation, ECHO data focuses on compliance- and enforcement-related information for EPA-regulated facilities. The federal tracking system monitors compliance across stationary sources with air emissions, surface water dischargers, hazardous waste handlers, and public drinking water systems. In central Ohio, the flagged sites encompass municipal infrastructure, state correctional institutions, industrial manufacturing plants, and mobile home park drinking water systems.
Across the region, the 53 flagged facilities include 13 in Licking County, 11 in Madison County, eight in Franklin County, eight in Delaware County, eight in Pickaway County, and five in Fairfield County. Union County has zero.
In Franklin County, federal query results list eight facilities with significant violations. In Fairfield County, federal query records list five facilities with significant violations. In Union County, federal query results list zero facilities with significant violations.
Despite the noncompliance designations, 50 of the 53 have no penalty recorded in ECHO over the five-year window. Furthermore, 45 of 53 have no formal enforcement action recorded while 34 have at least one informal action.
Only three facilities account for penalties in the database for this group, totaling $357,100: Liberty Casting at $275,000, Shelly #90 at $60,000, and Crystal Lake MHP at $22,100.
Records show that 26 facilities were in violation all 12 of the last 12 quarters, including 24 with no penalty recorded and 21 with no penalty and no formal action. Facility searches present the past five years of inspection and enforcement data from the extraction date.
Persistent noncompliance appears across several public and private sites. Orient Correctional Institution in Pickaway County, an Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction state prison facility, has been in Clean Water Act violation for 12 of the last 12 quarters and in significant noncompliance for six quarters. The prison received two inspections and an Ohio EPA warning letter on May 19, 2025, but has no formal enforcement action and no penalty recorded in ECHO.
Newark City Landfill in Licking County, a municipal landfill facility, has been in violation for 12 of the last 12 quarters and in significant noncompliance for eight quarters. Ohio EPA issued a warning letter on Feb. 13, 2026. For the Newark City Landfill, federal query results record zero formal enforcement actions and zero dollars in total penalties.
Lockbourne Lodge mobile home park in Franklin County, a manufactured home community, has been in Safe Drinking Water Act violation for 12 of the last 12 quarters, classified as an Enforcement Priority for the last four quarters, and in Clean Water Act wastewater significant noncompliance for nine of 12 quarters. The park has 15 informal actions and an Ohio EPA Administrative Order on Consent dated April 11, 2025, with a $0 penalty.
Interview requests sent to Ohio EPA, ODRC, and the City of Newark received no responses before publication.
Federal officials note that database records reflect state reporting to the Integrated Compliance Information System, and unentered state actions may be omitted. According to database documentation, not all violations receive formal enforcement actions, and enforcement actions that have not concluded are not displayed.
Federal documentation explains that database records represent snapshots of source databases reflecting data as they existed when extracted, with updates lagging anywhere from a week up to three months, according to program documentation. States are not required to report violations occurring at Clean Water Act non-major facilities. In addition, some jurisdictions directly enter data to national databases while others maintain their own databases and transfer data to the EPA through batch processing.
How we know this
The sources and records behind this story, with the facts they support.
https://echo.epa.gov/resources/echo-data/about-the-data
Supporting evidence (6)
According to federal database documentation, ECHO data focuses on compliance- and enforcement-related information for EPA-regulated facilities.
Read supporting passage
ECHO data focuses on compliance- and enforcement-related information for EPA-regulated facilities
Facility searches present the past five years of inspection and enforcement data from the extraction date.
Read supporting passage
The past five years of facility inspection and enforcement data (from the date of extraction from the national data system of record) are presented through the facility searches.
According to database documentation, not all violations receive formal enforcement actions, and enforcement actions that have not concluded are not displayed.
Read supporting passage
Information available for enforcement actions can vary:Enforcement actions that have not been concluded are not displayed in ECHO (however, underlying violations are normally reported prior to completed government enforcement)Note that not all violations receive formal enforcement actions - in fact, many minor violations are corrected by facilities without the need for formal action
Federal documentation explains that database records represent snapshots of source databases reflecting data as they existed when extracted, with updates lagging anywhere from a week up to three months, according to program documentation.
Read supporting passage
ECHO data represent “snapshots” of the original source databases and reflect the data as they existed when the data were extracted.Although data are routinely updated, a lag time exists (anywhere from a week up to three months) between when data are entered into the source database and when they appear in ECHO.
States are not required to report violations occurring at Clean Water Act non-major facilities.
Read supporting passage
states are not required to report violations occurring at Clean Water Act non-major facilities, thus data regarding violations at those facilities may not be available via ECHO.
In addition, some jurisdictions directly enter data to national databases while others maintain their own databases and transfer data to the EPA through batch processing.
Read supporting passage
The migration of data from many jurisdictions to multiple national program databases is a challenging task. Some state and local jurisdictions directly enter data to national databases, while others maintain their own databases and transfer data to EPA through batch processing.
Supporting evidence (1)
In Franklin County, federal query results list eight facilities with significant violations.
Read supporting passage
"SVRows" : "8",
Supporting evidence (1)
In Fairfield County, federal query records list five facilities with significant violations.
Read supporting passage
"SVRows" : "5",
Supporting evidence (1)
In Union County, federal query results list zero facilities with significant violations.
Read supporting passage
"SVRows" : "0",