U.S. Steel facing a 2nd federal lawsuit tied to December fire at Clairton Plant | TribLIVE.com

U.S. Steel facing a 2nd federal lawsuit tied to December fire at Clairton Plant

Jamie Martines
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works as seen from Clairton, Pa., on Thursday, Feb. 28, 2019.

U.S. Steel is facing a second federal lawsuit in connection with a December 2018 fire that damaged pollution controls at the company’s Clairton Plant.

The Philadelphia-based environmental group Clean Air Council alleges that U.S. Steel violated the federal Superfund law, also known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), by failing to report the release of hundreds of thousands of pounds of hydrogen sulfide, benzene and other hazardous pollutants into the air following the December fire, according to a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The law requires that polluters report such releases to the National Response Center.

“The Superfund law is not just about the cleanup of contaminated property,” Christopher Ahlers, staff attorney with the Clean Air Council, said in a statement. “The notification requirement applies to releases to the environment, which includes air as well as land and water.”

Attorneys from the Environmental Integrity Project, based in Washington, D.C., are representing Clean Air Council.

“It’s critically important that industries promptly report releases of air pollution — as required by law — so that people living downwind can protect their families, and so that local health authorities can take appropriate actions to protect public health,” Lisa Widawsky Hallowell, senior attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement.

The groups announced their intention to sue U.S. Steel in May as the company was holding an event to celebrate a $1 billion investment in its Mon Valley Works facilities, which include the Edgar Thomson Plant, Clairton Plant and Irvin Works.

U.S. Steel has said that these investments will increase production while also reducing pollution. The updated facilities are projected to be online by 2022.

“As a matter of policy, U.S. Steel does not comment on pending litigation,” a statement from U.S. Steel provided by a company spokesperson said. “Environmental stewardship and safety remain core values at U.S. Steel, where we spend approximately $100 million annually on environmental compliance across the Mon Valley Works. We continue to invest in our operations and processes, including the recently announced over $1 billion investment in sustainable steel technology and co-generation facility, which will improve environmental performance and energy conservation through the Mon Valley Works.”

A day after U.S. Steel’s announcement, the Allegheny County Health Department announced it would be joining a separate federal lawsuit initiated by PennEnvironment and the Clean Air Council in February.

That lawsuit, which is also tied to the December fire, alleges that U.S. Steel violated Clean Air Act permit requirements related to coke oven gas pollution following the fire.

The health department and environmental groups are seeking a court order that would require U.S. Steel to comply with air permits, an order that would require U.S. Steel to remediate harm caused to local communities as well as hefty civil penalties to punish U.S. Steel for past violations and deter future violations.

In July, the health department received public comment on a draft settlement with U.S. Steel that addressed 2018 and early 2019 air pollution violations at the Clairton Plant. That settlement, which requires U.S. Steel to pay $2.7 million in fines, does not include enforcement actions related to the December fire.

The health department is still reviewing those comments.

Jamie Martines is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jamie at 724-850-2867, [email protected] or via Twitter .

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.