Letter to the editor: More information on U.S. Steel’s Clairton plant | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: More information on U.S. Steel’s Clairton plant

Your article “How residents grapple with life in the shadows of U.S. Steel’s Clairton Plant” (June 15, TribLIVE) appears incomplete in several respects.

First, Clairton supplies almost all of the coke to U.S. Steel’s operations in the U.S. If shut, U.S. Steel would need to import coke to operate and survive and probably import it from China or Russia. Such would not be ideal.

Second, the April 2019 proposal to build a cogeneration electricity plant from Clairton gas products significantly upgrades the environment in collecting pollutants, incinerating them in a contained environment and generating low-cost electricity for the public’s or the company’s use.

Your comments about public health are correct. The Christmas Eve fire caused harm. It cannot be dismissed or excused as a freak event. Over the past decades, U.S. Steel has continuously rebuilt the Clairton coke batteries attempting to control leaks, and federal and state agencies do their job to monitor them. The fines that you referenced communicate and document enforcement actions.

Yours truly is an investment analyst specializing in steel and other manufacturing industries. I have no economic interest in U.S. Steel. However, my father worked 27 years at U.S. Steel Homestead Works, and I grew up nearby. My sister with asthma living in Freedom observes air quality.

John C. Tumazos

Holmdel, N.J.

The writer is owner and CEO of John Tumazos Very Independent Research.

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.