Corporate Accountability Investigation
Carmeuse Violated Air Standards for Four Years. They Only Paid $98,750.
A lime manufacturing giant at 15 Williams Street, Grand River, Ohio pumped illegal levels of pollutants into the air for over four years. The EPA’s penalty works out to less than a rounding error on a corporate balance sheet.
The Non-Financial Ledger
Grand River, Ohio is a village on the southern shore of Lake Erie, in Lake County. It is a working-class waterfront community. The air there moves off the lake and through neighborhoods where people garden, where kids play outside, where older adults sit on porches. It is the kind of place where you trust that the factory down the road is following the rules, because you have to trust that. You have no other option. You cannot afford air quality monitors. You cannot hire an environmental attorney. You breathe what is there.
Carmeuse Lime operates a facility at 15 Williams Street, right in that community. The facility burns limestone and other calcareous rock in massive rotary kilns to produce lime, a chemical used in steel production, water treatment, and construction. The burning process creates particulate matter and other hazardous air pollutants. The law says that pollution cannot exceed 15 percent opacity coming out of the exhaust stack. Opacity is a measure of how much visible pollution a plume contains. When you see a dark, thick plume rolling out of an industrial stack, you are seeing an opacity violation in progress.
For at least 7,938 documented minutes between April 2020 and September 2024, the stack at Carmeuse’s Grand River facility was in illegal violation. That is spread across more than four years. During those minutes, the particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants being released were above the legal maximum. People nearby were breathing air the law said they should not have to breathe.
What makes this worse is the monitoring blackout. From May 1 through May 15, 2020, the company’s continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) went offline. For 14,592 minutes, over ten consecutive days, there was no data. In regulatory enforcement, no data means no proof of violation. The EPA cannot cite what it cannot see, and the instrument designed to generate that evidence was not generating it. Then it happened again, for a shorter stretch, in August 2023. Two separate monitoring gaps. Two separate opportunities where whatever was coming out of that stack was not being recorded.
The residents of Grand River did not get a warning when the monitor went down. They did not get a letter in the mail saying “we cannot confirm what you are breathing for the next ten days.” They got nothing. The regulatory process ground on, years passed, and four and a half years after the first documented violation, a consent agreement was signed. Carmeuse will pay $98,750. Nobody went to a hearing. Nobody testified. The company signed the paper, admitted to the jurisdiction but not the facts, and the case was closed.
That $98,750 does not go to a medical fund for people in Grand River who developed respiratory conditions. It does not go to air quality monitoring for the neighborhood. It goes to the federal government’s general accounts. The people who lived with the illegal air get nothing but the knowledge that it has, officially, been noted.
Legal Receipts: What the Documents Say
These are verbatim quotes from EPA Docket No. CAA-05-2025-0041. Every word below comes directly from the signed Consent Agreement and Final Order filed September 26, 2025.
“Carmeuse violated 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.7090(b) and (c) by exceeding the 15 percent average opacity limit at Tables 2 and 3 to the LMP NESHAP for the Lime Kilns #4 and #5 common stack for 7,938 minutes between April 3, 2020 and September 23, 2024.”
- This is the EPA’s formal, documented finding. The violations lasted 7,938 minutes, equivalent to approximately 132 hours of illegal pollutant levels above the federal threshold.
- The span of over four years is not a series of brief incidents. It reflects a persistent, systemic failure to maintain pollution control equipment on two separate kilns sharing a single emissions stack.
- The applicable regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 63.7090, mandates compliance at all times after January 20, 2021. Violations documented after that date carry no “malfunction” exemption.
“Carmeuse violated 40 C.F.R. § 63.7121(a) by failing to demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit in Table 3 to the LMP NESHAP according to the methods specified in Table 6 to the LMP NESHAP by failing to collect COMS data at the Lime Kilns #4 and #5 common stack for 14,592 minutes during May 1–15, 2020 and August 29–30, 2023.”
- The Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) is the only mechanism that generates real-time, legally mandated proof of compliance. Without it, there is no record of what the stack was emitting.
- The May 1–15, 2020 blackout alone accounts for over ten consecutive days. The facility continued to operate its kilns during this period, meaning lime was being produced and the stack was emitting, with no monitoring data to show whether those emissions were legal or not.
- The August 2023 blackout came three years after the first. The equipment design and monitoring obligations did not change. This was a second failure of the same legal requirement.
“Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations stated in Section E of this CAFO.”
“Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations stated in Section E of this CAFO.”
- This is standard consent agreement language, but its consequences are real. Carmeuse is not legally on record as having admitted to poisoning the air in Grand River. The facts exist in the document, but no court ever ruled on them, and no company executive was required to testify about the decisions that led here.
- Because the company also waived its right to appeal and its right to a hearing, there is no adversarial record of why the violations occurred, who knew about them, or how long internal management was aware before the EPA intervened.
“Based on analysis of the factors specified in Section 113(e) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(e), the facts of this case, and Respondent’s cooperation, the EPA has determined that an appropriate civil penalty to settle this action is $98,750.”
- Section 113(e) of the Clean Air Act directs the EPA to consider the seriousness of the violation, any economic benefit from non-compliance, good faith efforts to comply, and the violator’s compliance history. The $98,750 figure reflects whatever credit the EPA awarded for “cooperation.”
- The maximum statutory fine for a future violation of this same order is explicitly stated elsewhere in the document as up to $124,426 per day per violation. The total fine here covers thousands of minutes of violation across more than four years. The math is striking.
- “Cooperation” in this context means the company agreed to sign the document, not that it remediated harm to the community, funded health monitoring, or made any payment to affected residents.
“In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 22.18(c), completion of the terms of this CAFO resolves only Respondent’s liability for federal civil penalties for the violations specifically alleged in this CAFO.”
- This sentence is a formal shield. Once Carmeuse pays $98,750, federal civil penalty liability for every documented violation listed in this agreement is extinguished. The EPA cannot come back and sue for more on these specific violations.
- The document does not resolve state-level liability, private lawsuits by affected residents, or potential criminal referrals, but it eliminates the federal civil path entirely for what is documented here.
“Any violation of this CAFO may result in a civil judicial action for an injunction or civil penalties of up to $124,426 per day per violation, or both, as provided in Section 113(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b)…”
- The statutory maximum penalty for future violations dwarfs the settlement amount. The $98,750 fine covers over four years of past violations, while the rules going forward allow for $124,426 in a single day for a single infraction.
- This contrast reveals the discount Carmeuse received for past conduct versus the theoretical price of future non-compliance. It signals that the penalty here was minimized, not maximized.
Societal Impact Mapping
Public Health
The pollutants generated by a lime kiln in excess of opacity limits include fine particulate matter (PM) and hazardous air pollutants regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Grand River’s proximity to Lake Erie means prevailing winds carry stack emissions across residential areas.
- Fine particulate matter from industrial kilns penetrates deep into lung tissue. Elevated PM exposure is linked to asthma attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), reduced lung function, cardiovascular events, and premature death. These are not theoretical risks. They are the documented public health rationale for the 15 percent opacity limit in the first place.
- The Carmeuse Grand River facility is classified as a major source of hazardous air pollutants, meaning it emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons or more of a single HAP, or 25 tons or more of combined HAPs, per year. That classification places it in the highest-scrutiny regulatory tier, precisely because facilities at that scale pose serious health risks to nearby populations.
- The 14,592-minute monitoring blackout means that whatever was emitted during those periods is unrecorded. People living near the facility during May 1–15, 2020, and August 29–30, 2023, have no way to know what concentration of pollutants they were exposed to during those blackouts. There is no data. The health burden from those gaps cannot be quantified, and that ambiguity benefits only the company.
- The violations continued after January 20, 2021, the compliance deadline set by the revised NESHAP. This means documented harmful emissions occurred during a period when Carmeuse had no SSM (startup, shutdown, malfunction) exemption to cite. There is no regulatory defense available for those post-deadline violations.
“7,938 documented minutes of illegal emissions. Two monitoring blackouts. One fine. Zero admissions.”
Economic Inequality
Pollution enforcement failures land hardest on communities that cannot mobilize political pressure, hire private consultants, or relocate. Grand River is a small Ohio lakeside village, not a wealthy suburb with organized environmental advocacy infrastructure.
- The $98,750 fine was paid to the federal government, not to the people who lived near the facility during the violation period. No community health fund was created. No air quality monitoring upgrade for the neighborhood was mandated. No medical screening program was established. The money disappears into federal accounts.
- The violations spanned four years. Carmeuse’s kilns produced lime product throughout that period. Any economic benefit derived from delayed or reduced pollution control maintenance was captured entirely by the corporation, while the environmental cost was distributed to the surrounding community. This is the definition of an externalized cost.
- The consent agreement process itself is a wealth-based outcome. Carmeuse hired legal representation, engaged in multiple negotiation sessions with the EPA on February 18 and April 4, 2025, and ultimately secured a “neither admits nor denies” settlement. A community member suffering respiratory harm from these violations has no comparable access to the same process and no seat at the table.
- The statutory fine cap under Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act is calibrated partly on a company’s ability to pay. A $98,750 fine for a company operating multiple industrial facilities across a global supply chain is a cost of doing business. For families living near a stack emitting illegal levels of particulate matter, the cost is their lungs.
- The EPA document notes that “this matter, although it involves alleged violations that occurred more than one year before the initiation of this proceeding, is appropriate for an administrative penalty assessment.” That is bureaucratic language for: we are aware this took a long time, and we are proceeding anyway. There is no provision in the document for what happens to people harmed during the delay.
The “Cost of a Life” Metric
The EPA’s penalty puts a number on four years of illegal air pollution from a major industrial source. Here is what that number actually means when you hold it up to the light.
What Now?
Carmeuse Lime, Inc. is required to comply with the terms of Docket No. CAA-05-2025-0041. A companion administrative compliance order (EPA-5-25-113(a)-OH-7) was issued simultaneously, meaning the EPA considered continued oversight necessary. Here is who holds power in this situation and what can be done.
The People Who Signed This Deal
- Nicholas Bonarrigo, Vice President, Legal and Environmental, Carmeuse Lime, Inc. The person who signed on behalf of Carmeuse, legally binding the company and its successors to the consent order.
- Carolyn Persoon, Acting Division Director, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, EPA Region 5. Signed and approved the consent agreement on behalf of the EPA on September 23, 2025.
- Ann L. Coyle, Regional Judicial Officer, EPA Region 5. Issued the Final Order on September 25, 2025, making the consent agreement legally binding.
- Joseph Freudenberg (joseph.freudenberg@carmeuse.com) is listed as the designated representative for Carmeuse Lime to receive service of the CAFO.
Regulatory Bodies on the Watchlist
- EPA Region 5 Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch: The agency responsible for this enforcement action. Contact: R5airenforcement@epa.gov. This is the office that monitors ongoing compliance under the companion order.
- U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General: Accepts complaints about the adequacy of EPA enforcement actions, including whether penalties were calculated to reflect actual economic benefit of non-compliance.
- Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control: State-level authority that may impose additional requirements beyond the federal consent order. The federal settlement explicitly does not resolve state-level obligations.
- U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division: Holds authority to pursue criminal enforcement under Section 113(c) of the Clean Air Act if evidence of knowing violations is established.
- Lake County, Ohio Board of Health: The local public health authority that can conduct independent air quality assessments and request health studies for communities near major industrial sources.
What You Can Do
- Request the companion compliance order (EPA-5-25-113(a)-OH-7) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to EPA Region 5. That document was issued simultaneously with this settlement and governs ongoing monitoring requirements. It is not included in the public CAFO.
- Connect with local environmental justice organizations in Lake County and the broader northeastern Ohio region. Organizations focused on industrial pollution near residential areas can assist residents in documenting symptoms, filing complaints, and building collective pressure for improved monitoring.
- Submit public comments to EPA Region 5 regarding the adequacy of air quality monitoring at the Grand River facility. The companion compliance order should specify ongoing COMS requirements; the public has a right to know whether those requirements are being met.
- Contact Ohio state legislators representing Lake County to request state-level investigation into the adequacy of federal enforcement timelines. A four-year gap between the first violation and the formal Finding of Violation is a policy failure that state oversight can address.
- Support community air quality monitoring projects run by mutual aid networks and university environmental programs. Purple Air sensors and similar low-cost monitoring tools can create independent records that complement, and hold accountable, the company’s own COMS data.
The source document for this investigation is attached below.
Please fact check me by visiting this following link to see the source that I used to write this article: https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/RHC/EPAAdmin.nsf/Filings/8BB074190666170085258D11006F9291/$File/CAA-05-2025-0041_CAFO_CarmeuseLimeInc_GrandRiverOhio_18PGS.pdf
Explore by category
Product Safety Violations
When companies sell dangerous goods, consumers pay the price.
View Cases →Financial Fraud & Corruption
Lies, scams, and executive impunity that distort markets.
View Cases →
