Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
CCU Coal & Construction, LLC · EPA Administrative Enforcement Order and Civil Penalty
Coal Facility Dumped Copper Into Ohio River for Over a Year
CCU Coal & Construction in Bellaire, Ohio repeatedly violated clean water permits by discharging excess copper and chloride into the Ohio River while failing to conduct required pollution monitoring on 17 occasions between November 2021 and December 2022.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
For over a year, CCU Coal & Construction failed to monitor stormwater runoff from its coal facility on the Ohio River, missed required pollution sampling 17 times, and discharged copper at levels 52% above legal limits without reporting the violation. The company also failed to maintain required pollution prevention plans and stormwater controls at critical facility areas. The EPA assessed a $60,541 penalty after discovering the systematic neglect of Clean Water Act requirements.
This case shows how inadequate oversight allows industrial polluters to contaminate public waterways while communities downstream pay the price.
17
Required pollution samples the company failed to perform
52%
How much copper discharge exceeded legal limits (44 vs 29 µg/L)
$60,541
Civil penalty assessed by EPA
14 months
Duration of alleged violations (Nov 2021 to Dec 2022)
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 6 points
| 01 | CCU Coal & Construction failed to sample discharged stormwater for copper and chloride on 17 separate occasions between November 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, violating its NPDES permit requirements. The company was required to conduct quarterly sampling at Outfall 0IL00110001 for copper and monthly sampling at Outfall 0IL001100003 for copper, plus yearly sampling for chloride. | high |
| 02 | The company discharged copper from Outfall 0IL001100003 at a concentration of 44 micrograms per liter, exceeding the daily maximum permit limit of 29 micrograms per liter by more than 50%. This violation of effluent limits occurred at least once during the violation period. | high |
| 03 | CCU Coal & Construction failed to report the copper discharge violation to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency within 24 hours of discovery as required by the permit. The company violated both the reporting requirement in Part III.12.A and the monitoring requirement in Part III.4.D of its NPDES permit. | high |
| 04 | The facility discharged pollutants from two outfalls into the Ohio River without developing or maintaining an up-to-date Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that contained all required elements. The SWPPP must include site maps showing structures, stormwater flow directions, control measures, conveyances, pollutant sources, monitoring points, and activities exposed to precipitation. | high |
| 05 | The company failed to install sufficient stormwater controls at two critical facility locations: the sloped area in the southern portion near the coal conveyor and the northern portion used for fuel tank storage, equipment maintenance, and waste oil storage. These areas lacked adequate measures to manage stormwater discharges and minimize exposure of industrial materials to rain and runoff. | high |
| 06 | Both outfalls from the facility discharge industrial stormwater runoff directly into the Ohio River, a major navigable waterway. The copper and chloride discharged from these point sources qualify as pollutants under the Clean Water Act and pose risks to aquatic ecosystems and downstream water users. | medium |
Regulatory Failures
How the system failed to protect the public · 5 points
| 01 | The violations persisted for over 14 months before EPA took administrative action, allowing repeated discharges of pollutants into the Ohio River to continue unchecked. The consent agreement was not filed until August 29, 2024, nearly two years after the violation period ended in December 2022. | high |
| 02 | Ohio EPA, which administers the state NPDES permit program under federal authorization granted in 1974, failed to detect or stop the systematic sampling failures and permit violations occurring at the facility throughout 2021 and 2022. The state agency did not receive required 24-hour notification of the copper exceedance. | high |
| 03 | The NPDES permit system relies heavily on self-reporting by facilities, creating opportunities for violations to go undetected. When CCU Coal & Construction failed to conduct required sampling, no data existed to trigger regulatory oversight or reveal the extent of pollution. | medium |
| 04 | The maximum civil penalty available under Section 309(g)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act is $26,685 per day of violation up to a total of $333,552 for violations occurring after November 2, 2015. The $60,541 penalty assessed represents only 18% of the maximum possible total penalty. | medium |
| 05 | The consent agreement allowed the company to settle without filing a formal complaint or adjudication of any issue of fact or law. This administrative shortcut enabled quick resolution but avoided public examination of the full scope of environmental harm caused by the violations. | medium |
Profit Over People
Cost cutting at the expense of environmental protection · 5 points
| 01 | CCU Coal & Construction avoided costs associated with required quarterly, monthly, and annual pollution sampling by simply not conducting the tests. Laboratory analysis fees, staff time for sample collection, and potential costs of treating pollution revealed by sampling were all deferred through noncompliance. | high |
| 02 | The company failed to invest in developing and maintaining a comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, avoiding consultant fees and staff resources required to create site maps, identify pollutant sources, and document quarterly visual assessments. This saved money while increasing pollution risk. | high |
| 03 | By not installing sufficient stormwater controls at the coal conveyor area and the fuel storage and maintenance area, the company deferred capital expenditures on infrastructure like detention ponds, filtration systems, and erosion controls. These upgrades would prevent pollutants from reaching the Ohio River during rainfall events. | high |
| 04 | The $60,541 penalty may represent less than the cost of full compliance over the 14-month violation period, creating a perverse financial incentive where paying fines becomes cheaper than following environmental laws. The penalty equals approximately $4,324 per month of violations. | medium |
| 05 | The company operates a coal managing facility in an industry with historically narrow profit margins and cyclical market conditions. These economic pressures can incentivize cutting compliance costs, particularly when regulatory oversight is sporadic and penalties remain modest compared to operational budgets. | medium |
Community Impact
Who bears the burden of corporate pollution · 6 points
| 01 | The facility sits on the northern bank of the Ohio River in Bellaire, Ohio, discharging industrial stormwater runoff directly into a major waterway used by downstream communities for drinking water, recreation, and commercial fishing. Copper and chloride pollution threatens all these uses. | high |
| 02 | Copper discharged at 44 micrograms per liter exceeds levels safe for many aquatic organisms. Heavy metals like copper accumulate in river sediment and bioaccumulate in fish tissue, creating long-term ecosystem damage that persists even after discharges stop. | high |
| 03 | Chloride pollution degrades freshwater quality and can alter the ecological balance of river systems. High chloride levels harm sensitive freshwater species and can make water treatment more difficult and expensive for downstream municipalities drawing from the Ohio River. | medium |
| 04 | Local residents and communities downstream from Bellaire face the health and economic consequences of water contamination while the company externalized cleanup costs and environmental restoration needs onto the public. Property values near polluted waterways typically decline. | medium |
| 05 | Working-class neighborhoods and smaller communities dependent on local natural resources bear disproportionate impacts from corporate pollution. Affluent populations can relocate or install water filtration systems, while lower-income residents lack these options and face direct exposure to contaminated water. | medium |
| 06 | The incremental, diffuse nature of stormwater pollution makes it harder for communities to detect and organize against compared to dramatic spills. Copper and chloride accumulate slowly in sediment and water, causing harm that unfolds over months and years rather than in a single catastrophic event. | medium |
Public Health and Safety
Environmental contamination risks · 4 points
| 01 | Copper is a toxic heavy metal that can cause gastrointestinal distress, liver damage, and kidney problems when consumed in contaminated water. Long-term exposure to elevated copper levels poses particular risks to infants, young children, and individuals with Wilson’s disease. | high |
| 02 | Chloride contamination can make drinking water unsafe and corrosive to pipes and infrastructure. High chloride concentrations damage water distribution systems, releasing lead and other metals from aging pipes into drinking water supplies. | high |
| 03 | The facility’s failure to maintain stormwater controls at areas storing fuel, waste oil, and conducting equipment maintenance creates risk of petroleum product releases. These substances contain benzene, toluene, and other carcinogens that contaminate surface water and groundwater. | medium |
| 04 | Sediment and heavy metals washed from the sloped coal conveyor area can smother aquatic habitats and concentrate toxic materials in fish consumed by local anglers. Subsistence fishing communities face elevated exposure to bioaccumulated pollutants. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Limited consequences for repeated violations · 6 points
| 01 | The consent agreement allows CCU Coal & Construction to resolve all alleged violations by paying $60,541.52 within 30 days, with no admission of wrongdoing beyond acknowledging the factual allegations. The company avoids formal complaint filing and adjudication of legal liability. | high |
| 02 | No individual executives, managers, or employees face personal liability for the systematic failures in environmental compliance. Corporate limited liability shields decision-makers from consequences while the entity pays a modest fine from company coffers. | high |
| 03 | The settlement does not require CCU Coal & Construction to conduct environmental remediation, test river sediment for copper accumulation, or compensate communities harmed by the pollution. The penalty goes to the federal treasury rather than affected residents. | high |
| 04 | Nothing in the consent agreement prevents the company from repeating the same violations in the future beyond the general requirement to comply with the Clean Water Act. No enhanced monitoring, third-party audits, or probationary conditions are imposed. | medium |
| 05 | The settlement concludes that the company is presently complying with Clean Water Act requirements, but provides no details about what corrective actions were taken to address the missing SWPPP, inadequate stormwater controls, or systematic sampling failures. Claims of current compliance cannot be independently verified. | medium |
| 06 | The agreement specifically states that payment of the penalty does not affect EPA’s right to pursue injunctive relief or criminal sanctions for violations, acknowledging that civil fines alone may not adequately address the misconduct. Yet no such additional actions are mentioned. | medium |
Exploiting Delay
How violations persisted unchecked · 4 points
| 01 | By failing to conduct required sampling 17 times over 14 months, CCU Coal & Construction eliminated the data trail that would document pollution levels and trigger enforcement. No samples means no evidence of violations in company records or discharge monitoring reports. | high |
| 02 | The company’s failure to report the copper exceedance within 24 hours as required prevented timely regulatory response. Had Ohio EPA been notified immediately, inspectors could have investigated whether the violation was ongoing and required emergency corrective action. | high |
| 03 | The NPDES permit became effective November 1, 2021 and violations allegedly began immediately, suggesting the company may have started operations under the new permit without establishing required compliance systems. This allowed over a year of noncompliance before EPA intervened. | medium |
| 04 | The consent agreement was not filed until August 29, 2024, approximately 20 months after the violation period ended in December 2022. This delay allowed pollution impacts to compound while the company faced no immediate consequences for ongoing noncompliance. | medium |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals · 5 points
| 01 | CCU Coal & Construction’s systematic failure to monitor pollution, maintain required plans, or report violations demonstrates a corporate culture that treated environmental compliance as optional. Seventeen missed sampling events over 14 months is not an oversight but a pattern of neglect. | high |
| 02 | The case exposes fundamental weaknesses in permit enforcement that allow facilities to self-report or simply not report violations. When companies control the data collection process, regulators remain blind to ongoing pollution until years after harm occurs. | high |
| 03 | A $60,541 penalty for over a year of violations affecting a major river system sends the message that noncompliance is affordable. Unless fines exceed compliance costs, companies face perverse incentives to gamble on lax enforcement rather than invest in pollution controls. | high |
| 04 | Communities along the Ohio River paid the price for CCU Coal & Construction’s cost cutting through degraded water quality, threatened aquatic ecosystems, and potential health risks. Corporate profit calculations externalized environmental costs onto the public. | high |
| 05 | This case follows a familiar pattern across extractive industries where deferred maintenance, inadequate monitoring, and minimal penalties create a business environment that tolerates pollution. Without structural reforms to enforcement and liability, the cycle continues. | medium |
Timeline of Events
March 1974
EPA authorizes Ohio to administer its own NPDES permit program for discharges into navigable waters within the state
November 2021
NPDES Permit No. OH0059889 becomes effective for CCU Coal & Construction’s Bellaire facility, identifying two stormwater outfalls discharging to the Ohio River
November 2021 – December 2022
CCU Coal & Construction fails to conduct required pollution sampling on 17 occasions and discharges copper above permitted limits without reporting violations
November 2021 – December 2022
Company operates without an up-to-date Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and lacks sufficient stormwater controls at critical facility areas
Unknown 2022-2023
EPA discovers violations during compliance review or inspection (specific discovery date not stated in consent agreement)
May 23, 2024
Gregory J. Honish, Vice President of CCU Coal & Construction, signs consent agreement admitting factual allegations and waiving right to hearing
June 4, 2024
Michael D. Harris, EPA Region 5 Division Director, signs consent agreement on behalf of the agency
July 29, 2024
Ann L. Coyle, Regional Judicial Officer, signs Final Order approving the consent agreement and civil penalty
August 29, 2024
Consent Agreement and Final Order filed with Regional Hearing Clerk, officially concluding the administrative proceeding
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Systematic Sampling Failures
allegations
“On 17 occasions between November 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, Respondent did not sample discharged stormwater for copper and chloride as required in the Permit, in violation of Part I.A.1. and Part I.A.2. of the Permit and Section 301 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311.”
💡 This shows the violations were not isolated incidents but a repeated pattern of noncompliance spanning over a year
QUOTE 2
Exceeding Copper Limits
allegations
“On one occasion between November 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, Respondent discharged a pollutant – copper – from Outfall 0IL001100003 with a concentration of 44 ug/l, which was in excess of 29 ug/l, the applicable effluent limit for copper specified in the Permit.”
💡 The company discharged copper at 52% above the legal daily maximum limit into the Ohio River
QUOTE 3
Failure to Report Violations
accountability
“On one occasion between November 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, Respondent discharged a pollutant – copper – from Outfall 0IL001100003 that exceeded the applicable effluent limits in the Permit, and did not report the noncompliance and did not notify OEPA within twenty-four hours of discovery.”
💡 The company concealed the copper violation from state regulators who should have been immediately notified
QUOTE 4
Missing Pollution Prevention Plan
profit
“Between November 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022, Respondent discharged pollutants from Outfall 0IL00110001 and Outfall 0IL001100003 but at the time of the discharges had not developed or maintained an up-to-date SWPPP, which contained all of the elements described in paragraph 41., above as required in the Permit.”
💡 The company operated for over a year without the foundational pollution prevention planning required by its permit
QUOTE 5
Inadequate Stormwater Controls
allegations
“At two locations Respondent did not have sufficient stormwater controls in place in either the sloped area in the southern portion of the facility in the vicinity of the coal conveyor or the northern portion of the facility used for fuel tank storage, equipment maintenance, and waste oil storage as required in the Permit.”
💡 Critical facility areas handling coal, fuel, and waste oil lacked basic controls to prevent pollutants from washing into the Ohio River during rain events
QUOTE 6
Direct Discharge to Major Waterway
community
“The two outfalls discharge industrial stormwater runoff into the Ohio River.”
💡 This facility pollutes one of the nation’s most important rivers, affecting communities and ecosystems across multiple states
QUOTE 7
Pollutants Defined
health
“The copper discharged from the facility into the Ohio River is a ‘pollutant’ as defined by Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). The chloride discharged from the facility into the Ohio River is a ‘pollutant’ as defined by Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6).”
💡 Both substances discharged are legally recognized pollutants that can harm aquatic life and human health
QUOTE 8
Limited Penalty
accountability
“Based upon the facts alleged in this CAFO, and upon the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations alleged, as well as Respondent’s ability to pay, prior history of such violations, degree of culpability, economic benefit or savings (if any) resulting from the violations, and such other matters as justice may require, U.S. EPA has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $60,541.42.”
💡 Despite over a year of systematic violations, EPA determined that roughly $60,000 was adequate punishment
QUOTE 9
No Admission of Wrongdoing
accountability
“The parties agree that settling this action without the filing of a complaint or the adjudication of any issue of fact or law is in their interest and in the public interest.”
💡 The company avoided formal legal proceedings and admission of liability by agreeing to the settlement
QUOTE 10
Settlement Limits Liability
accountability
“Full payment of the penalty as described in paragraphs 54 and 55 and full compliance with this CAFO shall only resolve Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties under Section 309(g) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g), for the particular violations alleged in this CAFO.”
💡 The settlement only addresses these specific violations, leaving the door open for future enforcement but providing no enhanced monitoring
QUOTE 11
Claimed Current Compliance
accountability
“Respondent certifies that it is presently complying with Sections 301(a) and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342.”
💡 The company now claims compliance but the agreement provides no details about what changed or how compliance is verified
QUOTE 12
Required SWPPP Elements
regulatory
“The SWPPP must include a site map showing the extent of significant structures and impervious structures; a diagram showing directions of stormwater flow; a diagram showing the locations of all existing structural control measures; a diagram showing the locations of all stormwater conveyances including ditches, pipes, and swales; a diagram showing the locations of potential pollutant sources; a diagram showing locations of all stormwater monitoring points; and a diagram showing the locations of activities exposed to precipitation.”
💡 These detailed SWPPP requirements exist precisely to prevent the types of uncontrolled pollution that occurred at this facility
QUOTE 13
Navigable Waters Affected
community
“The waters of the Ohio River are ‘navigable waters’ under Section 502(7) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).”
💡 The Ohio River is a federally protected waterway, making these violations a federal offense affecting interstate waters
QUOTE 14
Jurisdictional Admission
accountability
“Respondent admits the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO and admits the factual allegations in this CAFO. Respondent waives any right to contest the allegations and its right to appeal the proposed final order accompanying the consent agreement.”
💡 The company formally admitted the facts of the violations and gave up any right to challenge them in court
QUOTE 15
Coal Facility Operations
allegations
“At all times relevant to this CAFO, Respondent operated Bellaire CCU, a coal managing facility, located in Bellaire, Ohio (‘facility’) along the northern bank of the Ohio River.”
💡 This identifies the facility as a coal operation, an industry with a long history of environmental violations and water pollution
Frequently Asked Questions
What did CCU Coal & Construction do wrong?
The company failed to monitor pollution from its coal facility on 17 occasions over 14 months, discharged copper into the Ohio River at 52% above legal limits, did not report the violation to state regulators, operated without required pollution prevention plans, and lacked adequate stormwater controls at critical areas handling coal, fuel, and waste oil.
How much copper did the company discharge into the Ohio River?
The company discharged copper at a concentration of 44 micrograms per liter from one of its outfalls, exceeding the permitted daily maximum limit of 29 micrograms per liter. This represents a 52% exceedance of the legal limit designed to protect aquatic life and water quality.
What is the Ohio River used for and who relies on it?
The Ohio River is a major navigable waterway used by millions of people for drinking water, recreation, commercial fishing, and transportation. Communities in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and other states downstream from Bellaire depend on the river for clean water and healthy ecosystems.
Why is copper pollution dangerous?
Copper is a toxic heavy metal that harms aquatic organisms at elevated concentrations and can cause health problems in humans including gastrointestinal distress, liver damage, and kidney issues. Copper accumulates in river sediment and fish tissue, creating long-term contamination even after discharges stop.
How much did CCU Coal & Construction pay in penalties?
The company agreed to pay a civil penalty of $60,541.52 to settle all federal Clean Water Act violations alleged in the case. This amount represents only 18% of the maximum penalty of $333,552 that EPA could have assessed under the law.
How long did these violations continue?
The violations occurred over at least 14 months, from November 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022. During this period, the company missed 17 required pollution sampling events and discharged pollutants without proper monitoring or reporting.
Did anyone go to jail or face personal consequences?
No individuals were charged or held personally accountable. The consent agreement only requires the corporate entity to pay a monetary penalty. No executives, managers, or employees faced criminal charges, and the company did not admit legal wrongdoing beyond acknowledging the factual allegations.
What is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and why does it matter?
A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is a required document that identifies potential pollution sources at a facility, maps stormwater flow patterns, and describes controls to prevent pollutants from washing into waterways during rain or snowmelt. CCU Coal & Construction failed to develop or maintain an adequate SWPPP, eliminating a critical safeguard.
Will the company have to clean up the pollution it caused?
The consent agreement does not require environmental remediation, sediment testing, or compensation to affected communities. The penalty goes to the federal treasury rather than being used for cleanup or restoration of the Ohio River.
What can I do if I live near a polluting facility?
You can request public records from EPA and state environmental agencies about facility permits and violations, report suspected pollution to regulators, join local environmental groups working on water quality issues, attend public comment periods for permit renewals, and contact elected representatives to demand stronger enforcement and penalties for polluters.
please read me:
CCU Coal & Construction, LLC CWA-05-2024-0014_FiledCAFO_CCUCoalConstructionLLC_BellaireOhio_16PGSDownload
Explore by category
02
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →
06
Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →Related posts:
Meyer Distribution deliberately polluted our clean air to make a quick buck
Strategic Properties LLC is still leasing houses with lead paint
Pangea Real Estate is literally painting houses out of lead
Discover how Petroleum Management’s total disregard for permits and controls exposes failures of corporate accountability and public safety.
