The report comes in the wake of the departure of ACHD Director Karen Hacker, and makes recommendations Steel’s Clairton Coke Works over the last 30 years (an average of 2.7 per year), but the facility continues Steel and its willingness to consider shutdown of coke making at Clairton Works after a recent fire that

Armstrong and Indiana Counties for Title V permitting purposes, as well as Butler, Clarion, Crawford, Elk, Erie

U.S. Steel this week filed its answers and affirmative defenses to a federal citizens lawsuit filed against it in April in U.S. District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania by the nonprofit groups Penn Environment and Clean Air Council for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. In June, the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) successfully moved to intervene in the case. In legal documents filed Tuesday, attorneys for U.S. Steel asked the court to enter the judgment in the company’s favor, along with court costs and other “further relief as this court deems appropriate. In its answers, U.S. Steel is clear in its denial of the allegations set forth in the suit, and further stated that it denied, “that individuals who live or rent property near its Clairton, Edgar Thomson, and Irvin Plants were adversely affected by alleged illegal pollutant emissions from the plants.” Attorneys for the multi-billion international steel-making company raised a number of issues, alleging among other things that: Penn Environment and Clean Air Council failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. That the two environmental agencies “lack capacity to sue of the requisite standing” to pursue the claims made in the lawsuit. That the two environmental groups’ 60-day notice of their intent to sue was “inadequate” and did not comply with federal requirements. That the complaint should be barred because it is “based on emergency conditions or conditions outside of U.S. Steel’s reasonable control.” That the complaint should be barred because it is “based on the terms of prior orders that are applicable to U.S. Steel and it’s Mon Valley Works facilities” and because they are also based on “the terms of the applicable permits, SIP, and local, state and federal regulations. That ACHD has no statutory or regulatory basis for its claims under federal statute or its own rules and regulations. Need a refresher on what claims Penn Environment, Clean Air Council, and ACHD raised in the suit? GASP wrote about the suit and its allegations, and also about Allegheny County’s successful motion to intervene. Editor’s Note: You can read U.S. Steel’s answers to the lawsuit here and here. Coverage from the Pittsburgh Business Times can be accessed here. Coverage from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Don Hopey can be viewed here. #USSteel #CleanAirCouncil #emissions #AlleghenyCountyHealthDepartment #PennEnvironment #ACHD #ClairtonCokeWorks

An East Pittsburgh woman on April 9 filed a class action lawsuit against U.S. Steel, claiming the company was grossly negligent/reckless in the way it handled a Dec. 24 fire at its Clairton plant and its aftermath. The suit specifically alleges that U.S. Steel: Failed to develop and/or maintain adequate policies and procedures as necessary to prevent the Dec. 24, 2018 Clairton Plant fire; Failed to develop and implement an adequate mechanical integrity program necessary to prevent any such fires; Failed to develop, design, construct, inspect, maintain, operate, control, and/or engineer proper gas processing center compressors, piping, and/or pressure letdown devices as necessary to counter the risk of explosion or fire in its gas processing Failed to develop and employ a backup release management plan to control the release of noxious gas and other harmful emissions in the event of a fire; Failed to notify Plaintiff and the Class of the Dec. 24, 2018 Clairton Plant Fire and the hazardous emission levels until Jan. 9, 2019; Failed to sufficiently reduce production and thereby emissions at the Clairton Plant following the Dec. 24, 2018 fire and until the emission reduction system was repaired and functioning Otherwise failed to develop, design, construct, inspect, maintain, operate, control and/or engineer its Clairton Plant to prevent catastrophic fires and uncontrolled releases of noxious gas and other harmful emissions. In the suit, attorneys for Linda Hernandez, 38, write that the fire “triggered repeated high health alerts from the Allegheny County Health Department, causing widespread nuisance discomfort (offensive odor, burning eyes, nose, and throat, difficulty breathing, sleep loss, headaches, anxiety) and impeding area residents’ use and enjoyment of their homes.” Hernandez seeks “lost use and enjoyment damages to vindicate private property rights – not enforcement of environmental statutes, regulations, or regulatory permits; She seeks monetary damages, not injuctive relief.” Punitive damages are also being sought. Her attorneys write several times throughout the 18-page Notice to Defend document: U.S. Steel should have known better. “The prolonged discomfort experienced throughout the class area and the repeated public warnings that alarmed the class-area residents and caused them to shutter inside their homes were all foreseeable,” the court document reads. “Defendant knew or should have known this would occur.” Hernandez, who experienced breathing problems and other physical ailments after the fire and through April 4, is seeking to represent residents who live in 22 affected communities. “Properties have been invaded for more than three months by offensive odors and noxious emissions,” the court document reads. Hernandez says in the lawsuit that those odors and fumes stopped her from walking her dogs outside, prompted her to keep her granddaughter indoors, and otherwise affected her ability to enjoy her property. U.S. Steel has 20 days from April 9 to respond to the suit. Editor’s Note: GASP has published several blogs about the Clairton fire, as well as subsequent air quality complaints and enforcement actions. #USSteel #Clairtonplantfire #emissions #LindaHernandez #ClairtonCokeWorks #Clairton #airquality

Steel for the third and fourth quarters of 2018 because of continued emissions problems at the Clairton Coke civil penalty of more than $1 million because of a decrease in compliance over time at its Clairton Coke Steel’s Clairton Coke Works does not improve violations in two sequential quarters of 2019 (Jan 1-June Steel is required to extend coking times to 27 hours, have specific equipment operational by April 1, Once repairs to the Clairton Coke Works made necessary by the Dec. 24, 2018 fire are completed, ACHD

Armstrong and Indiana Counties for Title V permitting purposes, as well as Butler, Clarion, Crawford, Elk, Erie

For those who are unfamiliar, coke-making is the primary source of H2S in Allegheny County and U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works is not only the largest emitter in the county but the entire state. “The most recent bouts of bad air quality underscore the need for stricter coke oven regulations,” GASP “We wish the health department would be more proactive when it comes to these issues instead of waiting Check them out: #PM25 #cokeovenregulations #H2S #airpollution #hydrogensulfide #USSteel #ACHD #ClairtonCokeWorks

“ACHD committed earlier this year to promulgating new coke oven regulations and to coming up with a plan For those who would like to take a deeper dive into the data, check out these graphs: #cokeovenregulations

Steel’s Clairton Coke Works.” Inspectors were assigned on-site at coke plants in the Mon Valley to quickly identify air quality violations largest fines and enforcement actions in ACHD history were instituted in 2018 to the US Steel’s Clairton Coke

These include Clairton Coke Works, the largest coke oven facility in North America. The Clairton Coke Works ranked third in PennEnvironment’s Toxic Ten study of the worst industrial polluters They were burning the coke oven gas without essential pollution controls. This suit comes on the heels of a similar lawsuit brought by PennEnvironment and the National Environmental Law Center that resulted in a $1.5 million penalty against another regional coke manufacturer, in what