Added: Estevan Briggs - Date: 23.02.2022 10:18 - Views: 38421 - Clicks: 6283
Myth : Federal and state air permitting agencies have diligently prosecuted owners of coke oven facilities, for violations of air pollution laws.
Reality : Consent Orders often impose easy housekeeping requirements and work practice standards that are already required under existing law, and place the facility on track for compliance that is already required under the law. Nevertheless, they can sometimes be effective if they require a facility to make capital investments in equipment that systematically reduces air emissions.
for more information on enforcement actions against ArcelorMittal Monessen. In AprilArcelMittal reopened a coke oven manufacturing facility that had ly been operated and idled by Koppers Industries, Inc. Since that time, there have been a of air pollution incidents involving this facility. In OctoberPennEnvironment commenced an action in federal court to address those incidents.
This action is currently pending in the U. Seeking a Monessen relief Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Title V Operating Permit and Emissions. During the last 5 years there have been 61 informal enforcement actions notices of violation and two formal enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act.
PennEnvironment v. ArcelorMittalCiv. On October 8,PennEnvironment commenced a citizen suit action in the U. The plaintiff is a non-profit environmental organization. PennEnvironment seeks an order requiring the facility to comply with the law, and refrain from further violations. It also seeks an order requiring the facility to implement measures to remedy, mitigate, and offset the harm to public health and the environment. Source: Complaint, October 8, The Complaint is based on 8 individual Counts. Links to the allegations in the Complaint are set forth below. The Complaint alleges that on a of occasions, the facility has failed to operate its coke oven gas desulfurization plant Desulfurization Plant when the coke oven batteries are in operation, in violation of its Title V Operating Permit.
The purpose of the Desulfurization Plant is to remove hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide, both harmful air pollutants. The Complaint alleges that violations occurred from August 19, to September 12,from June 14, to July 4,and on at least 7 other dates. This is based on the submission of citizen complaints to the Department, the submission of 27 citizen complaints to PennEnvironment, and the submission of 10 reports by the facility to the Department, all relating to air emissions from the facility.
The Complaint alleges that violations occurred on at least 10 separate dates.
The Complaint alleges that violations occurred on at least 3 separate dates. The Complaint alleges that violations occurred on at least 48 separate dates. The Complaint alleges that the facility has caused the flaring or combustion of a coke oven byproduct gas containing sulfur compounds expressed as sulfur dioxide in concentrations greater than 45 grains per dry standard cubic feet, in violation of its Title V Operating Permit.
The Complaint alleges that violations occurred on at least separate dates. The Complaint alleges that the facility has failed to operate and maintain a Continuous Hydrogen Sulfide Monitoring Device for its Desulfurization Plant since the re-start of its operations on April 10,in violation of its Title V Operating Permit. The Complaint alleges that violations occurred on at least 38 separate dates.
The Complaint alleges that members of PennEnvironment have experienced noxious odors from the facility, and suffer respiratory problems that they attribute to the facility. It also alleges that airborne soot from the facility has deposited on their property. Maroz v. This tort action brought by residents against the company in federal court demonstrates the types of claims available to residents suffering harm from air pollution from coke oven facilities.
The complaint included claims of nuisance, negligence, and trespass. The nuisance claim was based on the allegation that noxious odors and air particulates interfered with the use and enjoyment of property. The trespass claim was based on the allegation that the emissions entered onto their properties. On October 15,the Court dismissed some claims, but allowed others to proceed. The allegation of interference with use and enjoyment of property was sufficient to assert a claim for private nuisance, but without a showing of harm to the public at large, there was no claim for public nuisance.
Despite the dismissal of some claims, the claims for private nuisance, negligence, and trespass survived. Ultimately, the parties settled Seeking a Monessen relief case without an admission of liability by the facility. Under the Settlement Agreement, the facility agreed to implement two Supplemental Environmental Projects. To address the potential emission of odors, the facility has agreed to perform ceramic welding of the walls and roof areas inside the oven chambers of the remaining coke ovens at which such welding has not already been performed. To address the potential emission of dust and particulates, the facility has agreed to install paving of the in-plant roadway beyond the administration building and along the warehouse toward the boiler house.
Finally, the facility has agreed to create a fund to pay for alleged property damages. On November 14,the Court issued a Final Judgment and Order approving the settlement and fee awards. Actions Against ArcelorMittal Monessen Myth : Federal and state air permitting agencies have diligently prosecuted owners of coke oven facilities, for violations of air pollution laws.
Final Judgment and Order November 14,Seeking a Monessen relief
email: [email protected] - phone:(993) 610-4755 x 7408
Clean Air Council