A citizen run nonprofit organization is currently suing the biggest international steel company for an incompliant coke plant bordering Pittsburg. This plant, the Monessen Coke Plant, has been emitting odorous and harmful pollutants into the air. The organization is suing for going over Clean Air Act limits, running the plant with broken control equipment, and not using monitoring effluents properly. Currently happening. Filed 10/08/15.
Jessica Fox
10/18/15
Stephanie Hallowich and Chris Hallowich, H/W, v. Range Resources Corporation, Williams Gas/Laurel Mountain Midstream, MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P., MarkWest Energy Group, L.L.C., and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011)
Two farmers of Washington County, PA were suing three energy/oil companies for reparation for health and environmental impacts from their processes. The family was awarded $750,000 to relocate, from the house that they had owned. In addition, the family (including two children) was not to speak about hydraulic fracturing or the Marcellus Shale drilling. This was a notable case because it was a “gag-order,” a very controversial order that may take away freedom of speech. Recently, the documents about the case and the companies’ information, which had been sealed, have been released to the public.
The case was filed against a wastewater treatment plant in Philadelphia was not meeting the standards set in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Clean Air Act. Post-trial, the EPA removed odor standards from the SIP. Philadelphia supported this decision. This deletion was found illegal and odor standards were reinstated. The wastewater treatment plant was expected to modify its processes to prevent odorous and unsafe emissions. The city had a hard time making improvements, paying more than $60,000 in fines to the Court for not following the contract. The improvements have been made and the sewage treatment plant is currently running.
Changed the definition of a “new source” coal mine, for the EPA’s New Source Performance Standards. The new source status changed from date of production to date proposed. The amendment to the NSPS allowed the emission standards to reach more companies and sources of air pollution.
Pennsylvania submitted a change to its State Implementation Plan for the Clean Air Act, which had fewer requirements than the initial plan, so there were fewer changes to be made. The state backed this plan by showing new concentration measurements established with lower ozone levels than required by the Clean Air Act. The EPA denied this new data as a relevant argument. The court ruled in favor of the EPA, because the EPA has “the authority to require a state to show that its attained reductions are maintainable and enforceable and to withhold SIP approval if maintenance of the standard cannot be assured.” One-time compliance does not mean sustainability of compliance.
Jessica Fox
10/18/15
Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizen’s Council for Clean Air (1986)
Now called the Clean Air Council, the Citizen’s Council for Clean Air fought the state of Pennsylvania for not having an emissions inspection program for automobiles, which is a necessity under the Clean Air Act. This lawsuit brought emissions testing to Pennsylvania and established the Clean Air Council as a powerful organization in Pennsylvania.
A citizen run nonprofit organization is currently suing the biggest international steel company for an incompliant coke plant bordering Pittsburg. This plant, the Monessen Coke Plant, has been emitting odorous and harmful pollutants into the air. The organization is suing for going over Clean Air Act limits, running the plant with broken control equipment, and not using monitoring effluents properly. Currently happening. Filed 10/08/15.
Jessica Fox
10/18/15
Stephanie Hallowich and Chris Hallowich, H/W, v. Range Resources Corporation, Williams Gas/Laurel Mountain Midstream, MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P., MarkWest Energy Group, L.L.C., and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011)
Two farmers of Washington County, PA were suing three energy/oil companies for reparation for health and environmental impacts from their processes. The family was awarded $750,000 to relocate, from the house that they had owned. In addition, the family (including two children) was not to speak about hydraulic fracturing or the Marcellus Shale drilling. This was a notable case because it was a “gag-order,” a very controversial order that may take away freedom of speech. Recently, the documents about the case and the companies’ information, which had been sealed, have been released to the public.
The case was filed against a wastewater treatment plant in Philadelphia was not meeting the standards set in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Clean Air Act. Post-trial, the EPA removed odor standards from the SIP. Philadelphia supported this decision. This deletion was found illegal and odor standards were reinstated. The wastewater treatment plant was expected to modify its processes to prevent odorous and unsafe emissions. The city had a hard time making improvements, paying more than $60,000 in fines to the Court for not following the contract. The improvements have been made and the sewage treatment plant is currently running.
Changed the definition of a “new source” coal mine, for the EPA’s New Source Performance Standards. The new source status changed from date of production to date proposed. The amendment to the NSPS allowed the emission standards to reach more companies and sources of air pollution.
Pennsylvania submitted a new addition to its State Implementation Plan for the Clean Air Act, which had fewer requirements than the first, showing new concentration measurements with lower ozone levels than required. The EPA denied this data as a relevant argument. The court ruled in favor of the EPA, because the EPA has “the authority to require a state to show that its attained reductions are maintainable and enforceable and to withhold SIP approval if maintenance of the standard cannot be assured.”
Jessica Fox
10/18/15
Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizen’s Council for Clean Air (1986)
Now called the Clean Air Council, the Citizen’s Council for Clean Air fought the state of Pennsylvania for not having an emissions inspection program for automobiles, which is a necessity under the Clean Air Act. This lawsuit brought emissions testing to Pennsylvania and established the Clean Air Council as a powerful organization in Pennsylvania.
/pae/
pennenvironment-files-lawsuit-against-worlds-
largest-steel-company-over-illegal-air
Hallowich-Opinion-Order.pdf
http://www.marcellus-shale.us/Stephanie-Hallowich.htm
https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/paren
ting/
children
-given-gag-order-in-pennsylvania-fracking-
suit-settlement-194638861.html
http://www.pilcop.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bridesburg_85.
pdf
volume-raw%5D/20283/pennsylvania-citi
zens-coalition-v-epa
_volume-raw%5D/21049/pennsylvania-v-
epa
vania
+v.+Delaware+Valley+Citizens%27+Council
+for
+Clean+Air&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1
-over-mariner-east-2-pipeline-plan/
http://www.marcellus-shale.us/Stephanie-Hallowich.htm
https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/parenting/children-given-gag-order-in-pennsylvania-fracking-suit-settlement-194638861.html
http://www.pilcop.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bridesburg_85.pdf
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/coal/upload/Coal-Mining_NSPS-amend_45-FR-43413_06-27-1980.pdf
http://www.cleanair.org/about_us