EPA, state regulators sue 17 companies over Superfund site costs
The Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Environtmental Protection sued 17 companies in federal court on Friday to recover costs associated with cleaning up a Superfund site in Lawrence County.
A Superfund site is an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located. There are more than 250 in Pennsylvania, according to the EPA.
This site in West Pittsburg, operated by Reactive Metals and Alloys Corp., or Remacor, on 45 acres, accepted magnesium shavings and scrap from customers, and processed the waste into a reagent used in steel production.
A 2005 fire on the property halted the plant's processing ability, but the company continued to accept waste, stockpiling more than 6 million pounds, much of it improperly stored, the lawsuit claims.
The EPA and state DEP paid about $10 million to remove the material in September 2006, and the lawsuit seeks reimbursement from the companies and a pledge that they will be responsible for future costs.
The companies include a dozen mostly out-of-state metal and machine manufacturers, including Black & Decker, Rolls Royce, and Johns Hopkins University.
Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pennsylvania Game Commission reaps revenue from shale gas under game lands
- University of Pittsburgh researchers revisit war of electric currents
- As historic breakup nears, Alcoa works to redefine its ‘advantage’
- Energy Spotlight: Minking Chyu
- Small stores take big gamble by not upgrading credit card readers
- Older workers try to cut back on hours at job
- Program lets public service workers be forgiven for student debt
- Yahoo investors losing patience with ‘star’ CEO Marissa Mayer
- Batteries key to alternative energy’s success
- Make green home upgrades pay off
- Nutritional supplement makers, led by GNC, want to create voluntary safety standards