UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

 

PENNENVIRONMENT, INC., and CLEAN
AIR COUNCIL,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No.:

V.
COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION,

Defendant.



 

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a citizen enforcement suit brought by two non-pro?t environmental
organizations, on behalf of their individual members, to redress and prevent Clean Air Act
violations that negatively affect the health and lives of residents by repeatedly
exposing them to harmful air pollutants.

2. Defendant United States Steel Corporation Steel?) owns and operates a
group of integrated steel production facilities in Allegheny County, which include
the Clairton Coke Works (?Clairton Works?) and two steel mills, the Irvin Plant and the Edgar
Thomson Plant (all three collectively, the ?Plants?).

3. US. Steel has repeatedly violated the federal Clean Air Act or 
the State Implementation Plan including Allegheny County Health
Department Rules and Regulations Article XXI (?Article and the applicable CAA

operating permits at the three Plants.

4. The violations that are the subject ofthis suit stem primarily from US. Steel?s
decision to continue operating the Plants at close to full capacity for several months while air
pollution controls were offline following a ?re on December 24, 2018.

5. The Plants? operations, design, age, and history of non-compliance with emission
standards and limitations demonstrate that these violations are likely to recur.

6. US. Steel?s violations include: creating conditions of air pollution in the
communities surrounding the Plants; operating the Plants without required pollution control
equipment; combusting gases as fuel or in ?ares that contain pollutants at levels that exceed
permitted limits; and emitting air pollutants into the atmosphere in excess of numeric emission
limits.

7. Plaintiffs are unaware of any actions taken by US. Steel that are suf?cient to
prevent future violations of the types alleged in Counts I through IV. Absent an appropriate
order from this Court US. Steel is likely to repeat its violations ofthe Act as described in Counts
I through IV. Plaintiffs intend this action to encompass post-Complaint violations of the types

alleged in Counts I through IV.

CITIZEN ENFORCEMENT SUITS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT

8. Congress has declared that the purpose of the CAA is ?to protect and enhance the
quality of the Nation?s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the
productive capacity of its population.? 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(l).

9. In the ?citizen suit? provision of the CAA. Congress authorized any person to

commence a civil action against any person who is alleged to have violated (if there is evidence

that the alleged violation has been repeated) or to be in violation of an emission standard or
limitation under the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(l).
10. The CAA de?nes each ofthe following as an ?emission standard or limitation?:
a. any standard or limitation established ?under any permit issued pursuant to
subchapter of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7604(f)(4));
b. any standard or limitation established ?under any applicable State implementation
plan approved by the Administrator? (42 U.S.C. 7604(f)(4));
c. ?any permit term or condition? (42 U.S.C. 7604(f)(4));
d. any ?emission limitation, standard of performance, or emission standard? (42
U.S.C. 7604(t)(l)); and
e. ?any condition or requirement ofa permit under part of subchapter I ofthis
chapter (relating to signi?cant deterioration of air quality) or Part of subchapter
I of this chapter (relating to nonattainment)? (42 U.S.C. 7604(t)(3)).

I 1. The Clean Air Act directs each state or local air pollution control agency to
develop a State Implementation Plan that describes how it will achieve and maintain
compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to protect human health and the environment.
has an EPA-approved SIP. Allegheny County Health Department Rules and
Regulations Article XXI is part of the SIP.

12. The Clean Air Act directs each state to develop a permit program under state or
local law that meets the requirements of subchapter (or ?Title of the CAA for review and

approval by EPA. 42 U.S.C. 766la(d).

13. The Allegheny County Health Department issues operating permits
under Title of the CAA to facilities located in Allegheny County, 40 C.F.R. Part
70, App. A.

14. Title Partial Operating Permit Program is governed by Article XXI.
EPA granted final full approval of the Allegheny County Title Partial Operating Permit
Program, effective December 17, 2001. 66 Fed. Reg. 55.112-15 (November I, 2001).

15. In this action, Plaintiffs allege US. Steel has violated the Plants? operating
permits issued under Title of the CAA, under standards and limitations contained in the
SIP, and under federally-established emission limitations and standards of
performance that relate to coke plants and steel processing facilities.

16. The CAA citizen suit provides district courts with jurisdiction to ?enforce"
emission standards and limitations, and to impose an appropriate civil penalty on the violator of
those emission standards and limitations. 42 U.S.C. 7604(a). Such civil penalties are deposited
in a special fund of the United States Treasury to be used by EPA to finance air compliance and
enforcement activities, although the Court has the discretion to order that up to $100,000 of such
civil penalties instead be used to fund beneficial mitigation projects that are consistent with the
CAA and enhance the public health or the environment. 42 U.S.C. 7604(g)(2).

17. Terms and conditions in a Title permit are enforceable by citizens under the
CAA. 42 U.S.C. ?7604(t)(4); 57 Fed Reg. 32,350 (Jul. 21, 1992).

JURISDICTION. VENUE. AND NOTICE
18. Subject matterjurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 33 U.S.C. 7604(a)

(CAA citizen suitjurisdictional provision) and 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal questionjurisdiction).

l9. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7604(c)(l) (CAA citizen suit
venue provision), and 28 U.S.C. 1391(e) (federal venue provision) because the Plants are
stationary sources located within this District.

20. Plaintiffs gave Defendant notice ofthe violations alleged in this Complaint more
than 60 days prior to commencement of this lawsuit by a letter (the ?Notice Letter?) mailed to:
Kurt Barshick, who is the General Manager of the Plants. and David Burritt, who is the President
of US Steel. A copy of the Notice Letter is attached as Exhibit 1. The Notice Letter is
incorporated by reference herein.

Both Mr. Barshick and Mr. Burritt received the Notice Letter. Plaintiffs also
mailed a copy of the Notice Letter to Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc., as 
registered agent for US. Steel. A copy of the return receipt for each of these three recipients is
attached in Exhibit 2.

22. Copies of the Notice Letter were also mailed to the Administrator of the EPA, the
Regional Administrator of the EPA for Region the Director of the Allegheny County Health
Department the Deputy Director of ACl-lD?s Environmental Health Bureau, the
Deputy Director for Waste, Air, Radiation, and Remediation of the Department of
Environmental Protection, and the Governor of the Commonwealth of 

23. Each of the addressees identified in the preceding paragraph received the Notice
Letter. A copy of each return receipt is attached as Exhibit 3.

24. The Notice Letter satis?es the pre-suit notice requirements of the CAA, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 7604(b).

25. Neither ACHD nor the State of nor EPA has commenced a civil

action against US. Steel in court to enforce the violations described in this Complaint.

PARTIES

26. Plaintiff PennEnvironment, lnc. (?PennEnvironment?) is a non-profit
corporation with over 1 1,000 members, including 2,259 members in Allegheny
County. PennEnvironment advocates for clean air, clean water, and the preservation of
natural resources.

27. PennEnvironment researches and distributes analytical reports on environmental
issues, advocates before legislative and administrative bodies, engages in litigation when
necessary, and conducts public education programs.

28. PennEnvironment has members who live and own or rent property near the
Plants, and who are adversely affected by illegal pollutant emissions from the Plants.

29. Plaintiff Clean Air Council is a non-profit corporation
dedicated to protecting and defending the right to a healthy environment. CAC has 37,000
members, including members in Allegheny County.

30. CAC forwards its mission through sustainability and public health initiatives.
using public education, community action, government oversight, and enforcement of
environmental laws.

3 l. CAC has members who live and own or rent property near the Plants, and who are
adversely affected by illegal pollutant emissions from the Plants.

32. Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of their individual members who are adversely
affected by US. Steel?s unlawful emissions of hydrogen sul?de, sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter, and other air pollutants, and by other violations of emission standards and limitations at

the Plants.

33. The Plants? violations have harmful impacts on public health and the environment
in the areas where Plaintiffs? members live, work, and recreate.

34. ?Person? in the CAA is de?ned to include ?corporation.? 42 U.S.C. 7602(e).
PennEnvironment and CAC are corporations and thus ?persons? under the CAA.

35. Defendant US. Steel is a publicly traded, for-profit corporation organized under
the laws of Delaware and headquartered at 600 Grant Street, in Pittsburgh, 

36. US. Steel is the third largest steel producer in the United States.

37. The Clean Air Act operating permits for the Plants issued under Title of the
CAA are in the name of US Steel.

38. Clairton Works is located at 400 State Street in Clairton. Clairton
Works? Title Operating Permit Number is 0052.

39. The lrvin Plant is located off Camp Hollow Road in West Mifflin. 
The Irvin Plant?s Title Operating Permit Number is 0050.

40. The Edgar Thomson plant is located at 13th Street and Braddock Avenue in
Braddock, The Edgar Thomson Plant?s Title Operating Permit Number is 0051.

41. US. Steel is a corporation and thus a ?person? within the meaning of section

302(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(e).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Plants
42. The three Plants, together with the Fairless Plant in Fairless, 
constitute U.S. Steel?s Mon Valley Works. The Mon Valley Works produce as much as 2.9

million tons of raw steel per year.

43. Coke is used in the process of making steel. Coke is the most common source of
carbon used to convert iron oxides into steel.

44. Coke is made from coal. Coke is made by heating coal in coke oven batteries to
remove impurities. The outputs of this process include coke, which is almost pure carbon, and
coke oven gas 

45. COG is a heterogeneous mixture that contains variable levels of, among other
substances, hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (N H3), hydrogen
sulfide (H28), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including benzene, toluene, and xylene.
COG is highly flammable.

46. Clairton Works has ten coke oven batteries. Each battery has numerous coke
ovens. Clairton Works produces approximately 4.3 million tons of coke per year and
approximately 215 million cubic feet of COG per day.

47. Clairton Works has a Light Oil Recovery facility that is used to remove benzene.
toluene, xylene and other pollutants from the COG produced at Clairton Works.

48. Clairton Works has a coke oven gas desulfurization plant (?the Desulfurization
Plant?) that is used to remove H28 and other pollutants from the COG.

49. The Desulfurization Plant includes, among other things, two Claus Plants, a Shell
Claus Off-gas Treating Plant incinerator, and a Hydrogen Cyanide Destruction Unit.

50. Under the terms of the Clairton Works Title permit, US. Steel is required to
use the Desulfurization Plant to ?treat? remove sufficient amounts of pollutants from) all of
the COG produced at Clairton Works before the COG may be combusted in ?ares or repurposed

as fuel at any of the three Plants.

51. When COG containing H28 is combusted in ?ares, boilers, or other combustion
devices, the combustion process turns H28 into sulfur dioxide (802), which is released to the
atmosphere; any uncombusted H28 is also released to the atmosphere. Prior removal of H28 from
COG thus reduces the amount of H28 and 802 released to the atmosphere when the COG is
combusted as fuel or in flares.

52. Similarly, prior removal of benzene, toluene, and xylene from COG in the Light
Oil Recovery facility reduces the amount of those pollutants that are released to the atmosphere
when the COG is combusted as fuel or in flares.

53. Under normal operating conditions at Clairton Works, COG comprises 100% of
the fuel used as ?"underfire? gas to heat the coke oven batteries. 87% of the fuel for Boiler No. 1,
and 100% of the fuel for Boiler No. 2.

54. Clairton Works emits H28 into the atmosphere.

55. Clairton Works emits 802 into the atmosphere.

56. Clairton Works emits particulate matter into the atmosphere.

57. Clairton Works emits benzene, toluene, and xylene into the atmosphere.

58. Clairton High School, Clairton Elementary School, the Miller Avenue School.
and Clairton Public Library are within three-quarters ofa mile of Clairton Works. Sundry and
grocery stores, including Rite Aid, Dollar General, and Family Dollar. are within one mile or less
of Clairton Works. Morning Star Baptist Church, Gethsemane Church of God, and St. Clare of
Assisi Parish are within one-half mile of Clairton Works.

59. According to the EPA, 2,938 people live within one mile of Clairton Works and

36,439 people live within three miles.

60. in addition to using COG for fuel at Clairton Works, US. Steel also sends COG
generated at Clairton Works through pipes to the Irvin Plant and the Edgar Thompson Plant,
where it is used as fuel or combusted in ?ares.

The lrvin Plant is a secondary steel processing facility which produces steel
sheets. It has a hot strip mill, two pickling lines, a cold reduction mill, three annealing facilities. a
temper mill, and two hot dip galvanizing lines.

62. Under normal operating conditions at the Irvin Plant, COG comprises 90 to 95%
ofthe fuel for Boilers Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, 75% ofthe fuel for the hot strip mill, and 90 to 95% of
the fuel for its three annealing furnaces.

63. The lrvin Plant has five flares. identi?ed as COG Flares I, 2, and 3. and Peachtree
A Flares.

64. The lrvin Plant emits H28 into the atmosphere.

65. The lrvin Plant emits $02 into the atmosphere.

66. The lrvin Plant emits particulate matter into the atmosphere.

67. The lrvin Plant emits benzene, toluene, and xylene into the atmosphere.

68. Clara Barton Elementary School and the Community College of Allegheny
County are within one and one-quarter miles of the Irvin Plant. Sundry and grocery stores in the
town of Glassport, including Rite Aid, Dollar Tree, and Family Dollar, are approximately one
mile from the Irvin Plant. Queen of the Rosary Church and Kingdom Hall of Jehovah?s
Witnesses are within one mile ofthe Irvin Plant. The Kane Community Living Center, an
assisted living facility, is two miles from the lrvin Plant.

69. According to the EPA, 5,452 people live within one mile ofthe Irvin Plant and

64,934 people live within three miles.

N)

70. The Edgar Thompson Plant is an iron and steel making facility that mainly
produces steel slabs. Raw materials such as coke. iron?bearing materials, and fluxes are charged
in blast furnaces in the iron- and steel-making processes. The Edgar Thompson Plant has two
blast furnaces, two steelmaking vessels, a vacuum degassing unit, and a slab caster.

71. Under normal operating conditions at the Edgar Thompson Plant, COG comprises
4% of the fuel for its boilers, 50% of the fuel for its blast furnaces, and to 2% of the fuel for
Stoves Nos. 1 and 3.

72. The Edgar Thompson Plant emits H28 into the atmosphere.

73. The Edgar Thompson Plant emits into the atmosphere.

74. The Edgar Thompson Plant emits particulate matter into the atmosphere.

75. The Edgar Thompson Plant emits benzene, toluene, and xylene into the
atmosphere.

76. Fairless Elementary School, an Elks Lodge, the Braddock Carnegie Library, and a
Post Office are less than one-half mile from the Edgar Thompson Plant. Homeville Elementary
School. West Mifflin Area High School, West Mifflin Area Middle School, the Bell Avenue
School, and the Lowell School are all less than one and one?quarter miles from the Edgar
Thompson Plant. Family Dollar is approximately one-half mile from the Edgar Thompson Plant.
Good Shepherd Catholic Parish Church, First Church of God in Christ, and l-Ioliiday Memorial
AME Zion are within one-half mile of the Edgar Thompson Plant.

77. According to the EPA, 6,774 people live within one mile of the Edgar Thompson
Plant and 90,100 people live within three miles.

B. The December 24_,_2018 Fire

78. At 4:34 am. on December 24, 2018, a ?re broke out at Clairton Works in the No.

ll

2 Control Room (the ?Fire?).

79. The Fire resulted in the immediate shutdown of the No. 2 Control Room and the
No. 5 Control Room at Claiiton Works.

80. The No. 2 Control Room houses, among other things, a cryogenic gas separation
facility and the Light Oil Recovery facility.

The No. 5 Control Room houses, among other things, the Desulfurization Plant.

82. Under normal operating conditions, 100% of the COG generated at Clairton
Works is processed in the No. 2 Control Room. As part of that processing, it is separated into
different gas streams.

83. One of those gas streams, the sulfur-containing gas stream, also known as the
carbonate feed gas, represents about 15% of total COG volume. This stream is sent from No. 2
Control Room to No. 5 Control Room for sulfur removal.

84. If No. 2 Control Room cannot be operated, US. Steel cannot operate No. 5
Control Room, because there is no piping directly connecting No. 1 Control Room to No. 5
Control Room, and because the amount of COG would be too large for No. 5 Control Room to
handle.

85. The shutdown ofthe Nos. 2 and 5 Control Rooms in December resulted in US.
Steel by-passing the various air pollution control units housed in those facilities, and sending
untreated COG to be combusted at the three Plants as fuel and in flares.

86. In its prepared remarks for a hearing before the Senate and House
Democratic Policy Committees on February 7, 2019, US. Steel stated that ?the ?re originated

from a mechanical failure in the C-521 vacuum machine area.?

87. Upon information and belief, the Fire was caused by an avoidable mechanical
failure.

88. The location and impacts of the Fire were such that US. Steel was not able to use
the No. 2 Control Room, the No. 5 Control Room, or its Desulfurization Plant to treat any of the
COG generated by the Clairton Works coke oven batteries for a period of several months.

C. The Aftermath of the Fire

89. US. Steel continued to operate the Clairton Works coke oven batteries and to
produce coke after the Fire.

90. By continuing to produce coke at Clairton Works, US. Steel continued to produce
COG.

From the time of the Fire until at least April 4, 2019, COG was not treated for
pollution removal at the Desulfurization Plant or the other air pollution control devices in Nos. 2
and 5 Control Rooms.

92. From the time of the Fire until at least April 4, 20l9, ?Raw COG that
had not been treated to remove pollutants), was used as fuel at the Plants and combusted in ?ares
at the Plants.

93. On January 7, 2019, US. Steel reported to ACHD that it had reduced the
proportion of Raw COG it used as fuel in various production units, relative to its normal
operations.

94. To make up for the reduced amount of COG it used to fuel various production
units, US. Steel mixed Raw COG with added natural gas.

95. According to the ?rst mitigation plan US. Steel ?led with ACHD on January 7.

2019, US. Steel used Raw COG as fuel in the following proportions:

a. Clairton Works used Raw COG as 60% of the fuel for ?under?re? gas (which is
used to heat the coke ovens in the batteries), 10 to 20% of the fuel for Boiler Nothe fuel for Boiler No. 2;

b. The Irvin Plant used Raw COG as 5?10% ofthe fuel for Boilers Nothe fuel for the hot strip mill, and 5 to 10% of the fuel for its three
annealing furnaces;

c. The Edgar Thompson Plant discontinued use of Raw COG as fuel for its blast
furnaces but continued using Raw COG as 2 to 3% of the fuel for its boilers and
1% ofthe fuel for Stoves Nosthe Raw COG that was diverted from use as fuel at the Plants was
nonetheless still combusted; it was ?ared directly into the atmosphere by ?ares at the Irvin Plant.

97. From December 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019, the Plants emitted far more
802 and H2S into the atmosphere each day than they emit when the Clairton Works pollution
control devices are operating as intended.

98. Increased emissions of $02 from December 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019.
led to increased levels of PM in the atmosphere.

99. From December 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019, the Irvin Plant ?ares
emitted far more S02, H2S, and volatile organic compounds, including benzene, each day than
they emit when they are not ?aring Raw COG and when they are ?aring smaller volumes of
COG.

100. On April 4, 2019, US. Steel announced that it was ?now desulfurizing 100% of

the coke oven gas generated at our Clairton Plant.? US. Steel described this as ?an important

14

milestone in our repair efforts? and explained that it would ?continue to monitor and adjust
coking times as appropriate.?

10]. Upon information and belief, as of April 4, 2019, US. Steel remained unable to
desulfurize the full amount COG that would be generated at Clairton Works at full production
capacity; U.S. Steel?s ability to desulfurize ?100% ofthe coke oven gas generated? at Clairton
Works was a function of reduced production resulting in reduced COG generation.

l02. Upon information and belief, as of the date of this Complaint, Clairton Works is
operating at approximately 70% capacity.

103. Upon information and belief. no changes have been made to the design or layout
of the Desulfurization Plant or No. 2 or No. 5 Control Rooms as described in paragraphs 78-82
above.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS EMITTED FROM THE PLANTS

104. Hydrogen sul?de (H28) is a colorless and flammable gas.

105. H28 is a harmful air pollutant.

106. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
when released into the air, hydrogen sulfide can remain in the air from 1 to 42 days. depending
on the season. 
atsdr_h25_factsheet.pdf.

107. H28 has a ?rotten egg? smell.

108. H28 is both an irritant and a chemical and has adverse effects on both
oxygen utilization and the central nervous system. Low concentrations of H28 irritate the eyes,
nose, throat, and respiratory system low concentrations of H28 can cause a burning

sensation or tearing of eyes, coughing, andr?or shortness of breath), can cause asthmatics to

l5

experience breathing dif?culties, and can cause headaches, poor memory, tiredness. and balance
problems.

109. Sulfur dioxide is one of six ?criteria pollutants? identi?ed by EPA, and
subject to national ambient air quality standards 42 U.S.C. 7408(a), 7409(b).

1 10. 802 has a pungent odor.

1 1. Exposure to 802 can cause respiratory illness, aggravation of asthma, other
adverse effects on breathing, alterations in pulmonary defenses, and aggravation of existing
cardiovascular disease.

1 12. Exposure to high levels of can cause chronic hypersensitivity to a wide range
of respiratory irritant pollutants.

1 13. Children, the elderly, and people with asthma, cardiovascular disease, or chronic
lung disease (such as bronchitis or are particularly susceptible to the adverse health
effects of $02.

1 14. Sulfates are secondary particles formed from emissions.

1 15. Sulfates contribute to the formation of acid rain, which is associated with
acidi?cation of lakes and streams, accelerated corrosion of buildings and monuments, reduced
visibility, and adverse health effects.

1 16. 80;; exposure has been linked to central nervous system disease and disorders,
including heightened incidence of stroke and seizure.

1 17. 802 poses signi?cant health threats.

1 18. forms ?ne droplets that create Particulate Matter speci?cally PM 2.5

(particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter).

16

1 19. PM. also known as soot, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and
liquid droplets.

120. PM is made up of components such as acids nitrates and sulfates), organic
chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.

121. PM is a criteria pollutant identified by EPA and subject to NAAQS. 42 U.S.C.
7408(a), 7409(b).

122. PM exposure has been linked to premature death in people with heart or lung
disease, non-fatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function.
and increased respiratory (such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or dif?culty
breathing).

123. PM exposure has been linked to exacerbations of central nervous system disorders
and disease, including Alzheimer?s Disease, Parkinson?s Disease. strokes, and
neurodevelopmental disorders.

124. PM exposure has been linked to perinatal, neonatal, and pediatric central nervous
system disorders, including increased rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders and Attention
Deficitnyperactivity Disorder.

125. PM exposure has been linked to increased incidence of mental health disorders.

126. PM causes haze.

127. The settling of PM on ground or water contributes to acidi?cation, to nutrient
depletion and imbalance, and to reductions in ecosystem diversity.

128. Volatile organic compounds include a variety of chemicals, some of

which have short- and long-term adverse health effects.

129. Health effects from VOCs can include: eye, nose and throat irritation: headaches;
loss of coordination; nausea; damage to liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some VOCs
can cause cancer in animals, some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans.

130. Benzene is a VOC and is designated a Hazardous Air Pollutant under the CAA.

131. Benzene is a known human carcinogen. Benzene exposure can also cause
neurological harm in humans and animals.

THE PLANTS ARE SUBECT TO
THE PROVISONS OF THEIR TITLE PERMITS

132. Subject to EPA approval and oversight, Allegheny County Health Department
administers a Partial Operating Permits Program for major sources of air pollutants in
Allegheny County under Title ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

133. The operations of Clairton Works are subject to Title Operating Permit Number
0052 (?Clairton Permit?).

I34. ACHD issued the Clairton Permit to US. Steel on March 27, 2012. It was
scheduled to expire on March 26, 2017, but because US. Steel timely applied to renew it, the
Clairton Permit remains in effect until a renewed permit is issued.

135. As of the date of this Complaint, ACHD has not issued a renewed Title permit
for Clairton Works and the Clairton Permit remains in effect.

136. Pursuant to Clairton Permit General Condition on September 14, 2017,
ACHD issued Installation Permit 0052-1017 (?Clairton Installation Permit?) to US. Steel to
account for updates US. Steel sought to make to Clairton Works and to revise certain 
emission limits for Clairton Works as ?necessary to decrease ambient sulfur dioxide to levels

sufficient to meet the l-hour 

18

137. The operations of the Irvin Plant are subject to Title Operating Permit Number
0050 (?Irvin Permit?).

138. ACHD issued the Irvin Permit to US. Steel on December 9, 2016. It expires on
December 8, 2021.

139. Pursuant to Irvin Permit General Condition 111.40, on September 14, 2017, ACI-ID
issued Installation Permit 0050-1008 (?Irvin Installation Permit?) to US. Steel to revise certain
emission limits at the Irvin Plant as ?necessary to decrease ambient sulfur dioxide to levels
suf?cient to meet the] -hour 

140. The operations of the Edgar Thompson Plant are subject to Title Operating
Permit Number 0051 (?Edgar Thompson Permit?).

141. issued the Edgar Thompson Permit to US Steel on April 13, 2016. It
expires on April 12, 2021.

142. Pursuant to Edgar Thompson Permit General Condition 111.40, on September 14,
2017, ACHD issued Installation Permit 0051-1008 (?Edgar Thompson Installation Permit?) to
revise certain 80:; emission limits at the Edgar Thompson Plant as ?necessary to decrease
ambient sulfur dioxide to levels suf?cient to meet theI-hour 

143. The Clairton Permit, Irvin Permit, and Edgar Thompson Permit (collectively, the
?Permits?) each provide: ?It shall be a violation ofthis permit to fail to comply with, or to cause
or assist in the violation of, any requirement of this permit, or any order or permit issued
pursuant to authority granted by Article Clairton Permit at 23; Irvin Permit at 19; Edgar
Thompson Permit at 15.

144. The Permits each provide: ?The permittee shall comply with all permit conditions

and all other applicable requirements at all times. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a

19

violation of the Clean Air Act, the Air Pollution Control Act, and Article XXI and is grounds for
any and all enforcement action . . Clairton Permit at 27; Irvin Permit at 24; Edgar Thompson
Permit at 19.

145. US. Steel understands that it is obligated to comply with the terms of the Permits.

146. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the Permits is a violation of the
federal Clean Air Act.

147. 42 U.S.C. 766la(a) states, ?After the effective date of any permit program
approved or promulgated under this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to violate any
requirement of a permit issued under this subchapter, or to operate a major source except in

compliance with a permit issued by a permitting authority under this subchapter,?

THE PLANTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

148. The State Implementation Plan is a set of state laws and
regulations designed to protect air quality in 

149. One purpose of the SIP is to achieve compliance with federally
promulgated national ambient air quality standards 

150. SIPs are required by Section 110 ofthe CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410, and must be
approved by the EPA. Article XXI, the portion ofthe SIP applicable to stationary
sources in Allegheny County, was approved by EPA.

lSl. Neither SIP nor any of the Permits includes an "emergency
exemption.? ACHD has stated that no ?emergency exemption" is available. See 66 Fed. Reg.
55,1 12-13 (November I, 2001) (?The ACI-ID has incorporated most ofthe recordkeeping and

reporting requirements required under part 70 for an emergency to be considered an affirmative

20

defense. However. consistent with program, the ACHD program does not allow
an emergency to be considered an af?rmative defense?).
152. The Plants are subject to provisions ofthe SIP, including Article

XXI.

153. The Permits incorporate certain provisions of the SIP.

U.S. STEEL IS REQUIRED TO REPORT VIOLATIONS OF THE PERMITS TO ACHD
154. Each of the Permits requires US. Steel to report monitoring data to ACHD
demonstrating compliance with and/or violations of its terms and conditions. Clairton Permit at
26-27; Irvin Permit at 22-23; Edgar Thompson Permit at 18-19.
155. Each of the Permits requires US. Steel to report monitoring data according to the
following terms:

a. The permittee shall submit reports of any required monitoring at least every six (6)
months. All instances of deviations from permit requirements must be clearly
identified in such reports. All required reports must be certified by the Responsible
Of?cial.

b. Prompt reporting of deviations from permit requirements is required, including
those attributable to upset conditions as defined in this permit and Article XXI
?2108.01.c, the probable cause of such deviations, and any corrective actions or
preventive measures taken.

c. All reports submitted to the Department shall comply with the certification
requirements of [this permit].

Clairton Permit at 26-27; Irvin Permit at 22-23; Edgar Thompson Permit at 18-19.
156. Each of the Permits requires US. Steel to make two semiannual reports each year
to ACHD: one by January 31 for the period beginning July 1 and ending December 31 ofthe

previous year. and the second by July 31 for the time period beginning January 1 and ending

June 30. Clairton Permit at 26-27; Irvin Permit at 22-23; Edgar Thompson Permit at 18-19.

21

157. The Clairton Permit and the Irvin Permit require US. Steel to make quarterly
reports to ACHD. Clairton Permit at 27; Irvin Permit at 23.

158. Each ofthe Permits requires US. Steel to:

maintain and make available to the Department, upon request, records, including

computerized records that may be necessary to comply with the reporting and emission

statements in Article XXI 2108.01 .6. Such records may include records of production,

fuel usage, maintenance of production or pollution control equipment or other

information determined by the Department to be necessary for identi?cation and

quantification of potential and actual air contaminant emissions.

Clairton Permit at 26; Irvin Permit at 22; Edgar Thompson Permit at 18.

159. On March 19, 2019, US. Steel submitted to ACHD a spreadsheet of monitoring
data, which includes daily emissions of 802 (in pounds per day) and daily levels of H28 (in
grains per dry standard cubic foot of gas, or ?gridscf?j, for Clairton Works from December 24,
2018, to March 16, 2018 (?Clairton Data?). The Clairton Data is attached as Exhibit 4.

160. On March 19, 2019, US. Steel submitted to ACHD a spreadsheet of monitoring
data, which includes daily emissions of 802 (in and daily levels of [-128 (in gr/dsct), for
the Irvin Plant from December 24, 2018, to March 16, 2018 (?Irvin Data?). The Irvin Data is
attached as Exhibit 5.

161. On March 19, 2019, US. Steel submitted to ACHD a spreadsheet of monitoring
data, which includes daily emissions of 802 (in lbs/day) and daily levels of H28 (in gr/dscf), for
the Edgar Thompson Plant from December 24, 2018, to March 16, 2018 (?Edgar Thompson
Data?). The Edgar Thompson Data is attached as Exhibit 6.

162. On March 19, 2019, US. Steel submitted to ACHD a spreadsheet of monitoring

data, which includes daily emissions of S02 (in and daily levels of H28 (in for

22

the Mon Valley Works from December 24, 2018, to March 16, 2018 (?Mon Valley Works

Data?). The Mon Valley Works Data is attached as Exhibit 7.

US. VIOLATIONS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

163. Plaintiffs incorporate 1-162 into each Count below.

164. Each type of violation alleged in Counts I through IV occurred more than once.
and therefore was ?repeated" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(1).

165. Plaintiffs believe that additional information from US. Steel?s Compliance
Certification Forms and other compliance reports. ACHD inspection reports, and other sources
not yet publicly available will reveal additional violations under each count listed below, and
will reveal additional information about the violations described under each count listed below.

COUNT I: Failure to Operate Pollution Control Equipment

166. The Clairton Permit contains eight separate conditions requiring US. Steel to
operate and maintain certain air pollution control devices at all times when its coke oven
batteries are in operation. On each day from December 24, 2018, until at least April 4. 2019.
US. Steel violated each ofthese eight permit conditions.

167. The Clairton Permit sets forth ?Emission Unit Level Conditions? that govern the
operation of specified units within the Clairton Works. Emission Unit Level Condition V.A
contains emission standards and limitations applicable to Coke Oven Batteries 1, 2, and 3;
Condition V.C is applicable to Batteries l3, l4, and 15; Condition V.E is applicable to Batteries
19 and 20; and Condition V.G is applicable to Battery B.

168. Conditions and of the Clairton Permit
each provide in relevant part: ?At all times including periods of startup, shutdown, and

malfunction, the permittee shall operate and maintain the coke oven batteries and the pollution

control equipment required under 40 CF Part 63, Subpart L, in a manner consistent with good
air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions to the levels required by any applicable
performance standards under Subpart Clairton Permit at 47, 78, 109, and 141.

169. 40 CF Part 63, Subpart requires coke oven operators to install and maintain
Control Devices to limit emissions from coke oven batteries.

170. A ?Control Device? is ?any combustion device, recovery device, recapture
device, or any combination of these devices. . .. Such equipment or devices include, but are not
limited to, absorbers, carbon adsorbers, condensers, incinerators, ?ares, boilers, and process
heaters.? 40 CFR 63.1020.

171. The Desulfurization Plant and its component units, the Light Oils Recovery
facility, and the Vacuum Carbonate Unit, are all Control Devices under this de?nition.

172. On each day from Dec. 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019, US. Steel operated
coke oven batteries while Control Devices were not in operation. On each of these days, US.
Steel thus violated Clairton Permit conditions and 

173. Condition V.K contains emission standards and limitations applicable to the
Desulfurization Plant.

174. Condition requires that Clairton Works properly maintain and operate
its SCOT Plant incinerator according to good engineering and air pollution control practices at
all times. Clairton Permit at 18].

175. On each day from Dec. 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019, US. Steel failed to
operate its SCOT Plant incinerator, thus violating Clairton Permit condition 

176. Condition and (2) require that Clairton Works ?at all times

[o]perate one Claus Plant when coke oven gas is being produced,? and that each Claus Plant ?be

24

capable of independently processing all of the coke oven gas produced by the coke plant at full
production.? Clairton Permit at 181.

177. On each day from Dec. 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019, US. Steel failed to
operate either of its Claus Plants, thus violating Clairton Permit condition 

178. Condition of the Clairton Permit requires that Clairton Works operate
and maintain a hydrogen cyanide Destruct Unit ?at all times that coke oven gas is being
produced? and ?[h]ave two catalytic reactors in the HCN Destruct Unit, each of which is capable
of independently processing all of the feed gas to the HCN Destruct Unit when the coke plant is
operating at full production.? Clairton Permit at 181.

179. On each day from Dec. 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019, US. Steel failed to
operate the HCN Destruct Unit, thus violating Clairton Permit condition 

180. Condition requires that Clairton Works, at all times while producing
COG, ?[o]perate and maintain a Vacuum Carbonate Unit" and ?[o]perate one absorber column
and one Axi compressor. . This Condition further requires that each absorber column shall be
?capable of independently processing all of the gas flow through the Vacuum Carbonate Unit
when the coke plant is operating at full production." and each Axi compressor shall be ?capable
of independently processing all of the acid gases generated at the Vacuum Carbonate Unit when
the coke plant is operating at full production.? Clairton Permit at 181-82.

181. On each day from Dec. 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019, US. Steel failed to
operate the Vacuum Carbonate Unit and failed to operate an Axi compressor, thus violating
Clairton Permit condition 

182. US. Steel reported its repeated failures to operate the Desulfurization Plant, the

Vacuum Carbonate Unit, and the Light Oils Recovery facility to ACHD pursuant to breakdown

25

reporting procedures set forth in Clairton Permit General Condition Clairton Permit at
26-27.

183. On each day US. Steel violated the Title permit conditions described in
paragraphs 166-81, US. Steel violated the CAA.

184. On each day US. Steel violated the Title permit conditions described in
paragraphs 166-81, US. Steel violated the SIP.

185. Because the basic design ofthe Clairton Works and its pollution control units
have not been changed following the Fire, and because at least one other serious fire has
occurred recently in the pollution control unit area, the violations described in Count I are likely
to recur after the ?ling of this Complaint.

COUNT II: Creation of ?Air Pollution?

186. General Condition 111.1 of each ofthe Permits, entitled ?Prohibition of Air
Pollution,? provides:

The permittee shall not willfully, negligently, or through the failure to provide and

operate necessary control equipment or to take necessary precautions, operate any source

of air contaminants in such manner that emissions from such source:
a. Exceed the amounts permitted by this permit or by any order or permit issued
pursuant to Article 
b. Cause an exceedance of the ambient air quality standards established by Article
XXI ?2101.10; or
0. May reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health, safety, or welfare.
Clairton Permit at 23; Irvin Permit at 19; Edgar Thompson Permit at 15.
187. Every day from December 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019, US. Steel

continued to produce COG at Clairton Works without operating its Desulfurization Plant and

other air pollution control devices, and to combust the Raw COG at the three Plants.

26

188. U.S. Steel?s publicly available mitigation plans show that, on each day from
December 24, 2018. until at least April 4, 2019, U.S. Steel combusted COG as fuel at Clairton
Works that had not been processed by the Desulfurization Plant.

189. U.S. Steel?s publicly available mitigation plans show that, on each day from
December 24, 2018. until at least April 4, 2019, U.S. Steel combusted COG as fuel at the Irvin
Plant that had not been processed by the Desulfurization Plant at Clairton Works, and flared
unprocessed COG at the Irvin Plant.

190. U.S. Steel?s publicly available mitigation plans show that, on each day from
December 24, 2018, until at least April 4. 2019. U.S. Steel combusted COG as fuel at the Edgar
Thompson Plant that had not been processed by the Desulfurization Plant at Clairton Works.

191. On Jan. 9, 2019, ACHD issued a public warning to residents of the following 22
communities in the vicinity of the Plants: Braddock, Clairton, Dravosburg, Duquesne, East
McKeesport, East Pittsburgh, Elizabeth Borough, Elizabeth Township, Forward, Glassport,
Jefferson Hills, Liberty. Lincoln, McKeesport, North Braddock, North Versailles, Pleasant Hills,
Port Vue, Versailles, Wall, West Elizabeth and West Mifflin.

192. January 9, 2019, public warning stated, in part: ?Mon Valley residents,
particularly those with existing respiratory and/or cardiovascular conditions, children and the
elderly, are being encouraged to limit outdoor activities until further notice. High
concentrations of sulfur dioxide can affect breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and
cardiovascular disease. Sensitive populations include those with asthma, individuals with
bronchitis or children, and the elderly. Although it is unknown whether any

additional exceedances will occur, ACHD is recommending that Mon-Valley residents limit their

27

outdoor activities. particularly if they are, or may be sensitive to, $02 particles, while repairs are

being made.?

193.

As listed in the subparagraphs below, during the weeks following the damage to

the Clairton Works pollution control equipment by the Fire, ACHD repeatedly warned Mon

Valley residents of poor air quality and issued health advisories with the following substance on

the following dates:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT DATE TO SUBSTANCE OF WARNING
PARAGRAPH WARNING WHICH
NUMBER ISSUED WARNING
APPLIES
193a 1/1 6/ 19 All dates until ?We are continuing to encourage Mon
repairs at Valley residents to be aware of [the] risk [of
Clairton future exceedances], especially sensitive
Works are populations, those with asthma, individuals
completed with bronchitis or children, and
the elderly. $02 is a respiratory irritant
which can make these conditions worse. We
urge residents with these vulnerabilities to
protect themselves by limiting their outdoor
activities until repair is 

l93b 1/16/19 1/17/19 Warning of a ?poor air dispersion day? and
that ?residents, particularly those with
existing respiratory conditions may need to
limit their outdoor activities.?

1930 1/18/19 1/19/19 Warning of a ?poor air dispersion day? and
that ?residents, particularly those with
existing respiratory conditions may need to
limit their outdoor activities.?

193d 1/21/19 1/22/19 Warning ofa ?poor air dispersion day? and
that ?residents, particularly those with
existing respiratory conditions may need to
limit their outdoor activities.?

193e 1/22/19 1/23/19 Warning of a ?poor air dispersion day? and
that ?residents, particularly those with
existing respiratory conditions may need to
limit their outdoor activities.?

193f 1/30/19 All dates until ?[R]esidents, especially sensitive

repairs are populations, should continue to be aware of
completed the potential for 802 exceedances until

 

28

 

 

repairs at US Steel?s Clairton Coke Works
are complete.?

 

193g

1/31/19

2/1/19

Warning of a ?poor air dispersion day? and
that ?residents, particularly those with
existing respiratory conditions may need to
limit their outdoor activities.?

 

19311

2/1/19

2/2/19

Warning ofa ?poor air dispersion day? and
that ?residents, particularly those with
existing respiratory conditions may need to
limit their outdoor activities.?

 

193i

2/2/19

2/3/19

Warning of a ?poor air dispersion day? and
that ?residents, particularly those with
existing respiratory conditions may need to
limit their outdoor activities.?

 

l93j

2/4/19

2/5/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps

pollutants close to the surface? and directing
residents to information on ?potential impact
on health and how you can protect

yourself. . . 

 

193k

2/5/19

2/6/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and directing
residents to information on ?potential impact
on health and how you can protect


 

1931

2/6/19

2/7/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and directing
residents to information on ?potential impact
on health and how you can protect


 

193m

2/9/19

2/10/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and directing
residents to information on ?potential impact
on health and how you can protect

yourself. . 

 

l93n

2/10/19

2/11/19

Warning of?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and directing
residents to information on ?potential impact
on health and how you can protect

yourself. . 

 

1930

2/11/19

2/12/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and directing
residents to information on ?potential impact
on health and how you can protect


 

 

193p

 

2/16/19

 

2/17/19

 

Warning of a ?poor air dispersion day? and
that ?residents, particularly those with

 

29

 

 

existing respiratory conditions may need to
limit their outdoor activities.?

 

193q

2/19/19

2/19/19-
2/20/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and ?can
affect . . . those with respiratory conditions.?

 

1931'

2/21/19

2/22/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and ?can
affect . . . those with respiratory conditions.?

 

1935

2/22/19

2/23/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and ?can
affect . . . those with respiratory conditions.?

 

l93t

2/27/19

2/28/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and ?can
affect . . . those with respiratory conditions.?

 

193u

2/28/19

3/1/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and ?can
affect . . . those with respiratory conditions.?

 

193v

3/2/19

3/3/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and ?can
affect . . . those with respiratory conditions.?

 

193w

3/7/19

3/8/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and ?can
affect . . . those with respiratory conditions.?

 

193x

3/1/19

3/12/19

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and ?can
affect . . . those with respiratory conditions.?

 

193y

 

3/21/19

 

 

3/21/19

 

Warning of ?poor air dispersion? that ?traps
pollutants close to the surface? and ?can
affect . . . those with respiratory conditions.?

 

I94.

195.

ACHD gathers air quality data from a network of air monitoring stations.

The Liberty air monitor is located approximately two miles from Clairton Works.

The Liberty monitor measures, among other things, the concentrations of 802 and PM in the

local air each hour.

196.

The North Braddock air monitor is the nearest monitor to the Edgar Thompson

Plant. The North Braddock monitor measures, among other things, the concentration of SO). in

the local air each hour.

30

 

197. Exceedances of the one-hour NAAQS for SO: occurred on the following dates at
the Liberty monitor: Dec. 26, 2018 (two one-hour exceedances); Dec. 28, 2018; Jan. 2 and 3,
2019; Jan. 8, 2019 (two one-hour exceedances); and March 28, 2019.

198. Exceedances of the one-hour NAAQS for 80:; occurred on the following dates at
the North Braddock air monitor: Jan. 7 and Feb. 4, 2019.

199. Exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS for PM 2.5 occurred on the following dates
at the Liberty air monitor: Feb. 2, 3, and 4, 2019; March 24, 2019.

200. In its January 7, 2019, Mitigation Plan, US. Steel wrote: ?We are currently
?aring as much coke oven gas as possible, given current system demands at the peach tree and
Irvin ground ?ares and making this gas up with purchased natural gas.? Mitigation Plan (Jan. 7.
2019) at 5, 11 2.

201. In the Mon Valley Data, US. Steel reported to ACHD that its Irvin COG flares
emitted 13,4745 pounds of 802 on December 24, 2018 (date ofthe Fire), and 33,1615 pounds
of $02 on January 7, 2019 (date of first mitigation statement). The highest emissions
reported from the Irvin COG flares in the Mon Valley Data was 76,6268 pounds on March 2.
2019. Exhibit 7.

202. On each day from Dec. 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019, US. Steel violated
General Condition [11.1 of the Clairton Permit, the Irvin Permit, and the Edgar Thompson Permit
by failing to provide and operate necessary control equipment or take necessary precautions in
the operation of the three Plants, thereby emitting air contaminants in amounts that exceeded
the amounts permitted by each permit, causing exceedances of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards incorporated by Article XXI ?2101.10, and emitting air

31

contaminants at levels or in amounts reasonably anticipated to endanger public health, safety. or
welfare.

203. On each day US. Steel violated each of its Title Permits? General Condition
111.], US. Steel violated the CAA.

204. On each day US. Steel violated each of its Title Permits? General Condition
[11.1, US. Steel violated the SIP.

205. Because the basic design ofthe Clairton Works and its pollution control units
have not been suf?ciently changed following the Fire, because at least one other serious ?re has
occurred recently in the pollution control unit area, and because US. Steel has not developed and
implemented a contingency plan suf?cient to prevent the combustion of Raw COG as fuel or in
?ares at the Plants should Clairton Works? pollution controls again be rendered unavailable, the
violations described in Count II are likely to recur after the ?ling ofthis Complaint.

COUNT Violations of Hydrogen Sul?de Limits

A. Violations of Clairton Works Hydrogen Sul?de Limits

206. The Clairton Permit imposes limits on the concentration of hydrogen sul?de
(1-128) in coke oven gas (COG) used or combusted at the Clairton Works.

207. Coke oven battery Conditions and V.G.l(h)
each provide in relevant part: ?[T]he permittee shall not ?are, mix, or combust coke oven gas, or
allow such gas to be flared, mixed or combusted unless the concentration of sulfur compounds.
measured as hydrogen sul?de, in such gas is less than or equal to 40 grains per hundred dry
standard cubic feet of coke oven gas produced by Clairton Works, when all sulfur emissions
from the Claus Sulfur Recovery Plant and the tail gas cleaning equipment thereon, expressed as

equivalent H28 are added to the measured H28. The concentration of sulfur compounds

speci?ed shall include the tail-gas sulfur, measured as hydrogen sul?de, emitted from sulfur
removal equipment.? Clairton Permit at 48, 78, 109-10, and 141-42.

208. Desulfurization Plant Condition prohibits any person from ?aring,
mixing, or combusting COG unless the concentration of sulfur compounds in the COG is less
than or equal to 10 grains per hundred dry standard cubic feet of COG from Batteries l3, 14, 15,
20, and B, and less than or equal to 40 grains per hundred dry standard cubic feet of COG from
the other Permitted Batteries. Clairton Permit at 184.

209. Boiler Conditions and prohibit
Clairton Works from ?aring, mixing, or combusting COG in Boiler No. l, Boiler No. 2, Boilers
R1 and R2, and Boilers T1 and T2 unless the concentration of sulfur compounds in the COG is
less than or equal to 40 grains per hundred dry standard cubic feet of COG. Clairton Permit at
241, 244, 247 and 250.

210. Upon information and belief, ACHD issued an installation permit to US. Steel for
Clairton Works (the ?Clairton H28 Installation Permit?), pursuant to Clairton Permit General
Condition 111.39, which lowered each of the 40 grain H38 limits described in paragraphs 207-09.
above, to 35 grains.

211. In the Clairton Data, US. Steel reported to ACHD the daily H28 concentrations in
the COG (measured in grains per dry standard cubic feet. or ?gr/dscf?) at Clairton Works from
December 24, 2018, to March 16, 2019. The reported H28 concentrations were provided for four
different locations: the A-Line, the B-Line, the Unit #1 Underfire, and the Unit #2 Underflre.
Exhibit 4.

212. In the Clairton Data, with the exception of the December 24, 2018, readings at

Under?re Units #1 and #2 (5.2 and 6.8 gridscf, respectively), the H28 concentrations in the COG

33

at every location on every day from December 24, 2018. through March 16, 2019, were higher
than 40 gr/dscf. The H28 concentrations ranged fromhigh of 239.5 gridscf at
A-Line; a low of 122.1 to a high of 252.0 gr/dscf at B-Line; a low of 73.8 to a high of 167.7
gr/dscf at Unit #1 Under?re; and a low of 73.3 to a high of 325.9 gr/dscf at Unit #2 Underfire.
Exhibit 4.

213. Information available to U.S. Steel, but not currently available to Plaintiffs.
contains the dates, locations. and amounts of H28 concentrations in coke oven gas produced by
Clairton Works for the period from March 17, 2019 to present.

214. Because U.S. Steel did not desulfurize the COG it produced at Clairton until at
least April 4, 2019, Plaintiffs believe that the H28 grain loads at Clairton Works continued to
exceed 40 gr/dscf from March 17, 2019 until at least April 4, 2019.

215. U.S. Steel exceeded the H28 concentration limits in Clairton Permit conditions
and
and in the Clairton H28 Installation Permit, each day from Dec. 24, 2018, until at
least April 4,2019.

216. Each day U.S. Steel exceeded each of the H28 concentration limits in its Clairton
Permits, U.S. Steel violated the Clean Air Act.

217. Each day U.S. Steel exceeded each of the H28 concentration limits in its Clairton
Permits, U.S. Steel violated the SIP.

B. Violations of Irvin Plant Hydrogen Sul?de Limits

218. The Irvin Permit imposes limits on the concentration of hydrogen sulfide (H28) in

coke oven gas used or combusted at the Irvin Plant.

34

219. Irvin Permit Condition prohibits the Irvin Plant from ?aring, mixing, or
combusting COG in Flares No.1 to No. 3 or the Peachtree Flare unless the concentration of
sulfur compounds in the COG is less than or equal to 35 grains per hundred dry standard cubic
feet. Irvin Permit at 75.

220. Irvin Permit Condition prohibits the Irvin Plant from ?aring, mixing. or
combusting COG in reheat furnaces No. 1 through No. 5 unless the concentration of sulfur
compounds in the COG is less than or equal to 35 grains per hundred dry standard cubic feet.
Irvin Permit at 38.

221. Irvin Permit Condition prohibits the Irvin Plant from ?aring, mixing. or
combusting COG in HPH furnaces No. 1 through No. 31 unless the concentration of sulfur
compounds in the COG is less than or equal to 35 grains per hundred dry standard cubic feet.
Irvin Permit at 59.

222. Irvin Permit Condition prohibits the Irvin Plant from ?aring, mixing, or
combusting COG in Open Coil Annealing Furnaces No. I through No. 16 unless the
concentration of sulfur compounds in the COG is less than or equal to 35 grains per hundred dry
standard cubic feet. Irvin Permit at 63.

223. Irvin Permit Condition prohibits the Irvin Plant from ?aring, mixing, or
combusting COG in the Continuous Annealing Fumace unless the concentration of sulfur
compounds in the COG is less than or equal to 35 grains per hundred dry standard cubic feet.
Irvin Permit at 67.

224. Irvin Permit Conditions and prohibit

the Irvin Plant from ?aring, mixing, or combusting COG in Boilers No. I, 2, 3 or 4 unless the

35

concentration of sulfur compounds in the COG is less than or equal to 35 grains per hundred dry
standard cubic feet. Irvin Permit at 77, 80. 83 and 86.

225. H28 concentrations in the COG used or combusted at the Irvin Plant are
calculated at Clairton Works. See, Irvin Permit at 39.

226. No treatment occurs at the Irvin Plant to reduce the H28 concentrations in the
COG received from Clairton Works.

227. In the Irvin Data, US. Steel reported to ACHD the daily H28 concentrations in
the COG (in gridscf) for the Irvin Plant from December 24, 2018. to March 16. 2019. Exhibit 5.

228. In the Irvin Data, the H28 concentrations in the COG on every day from
December 24, 2018 through March 16, 2019, were higher than 35 The H28
concentrations ranged from a low of 122.1 to a high of 252.0 Exhibit 5.

229. Information available to US. Steel, but not currently available to the Plaintiffs,
contains the dates, locations, and amounts of the H28 concentrations in COG burned as fuel or in
flares at the Irvin Plant for the period from March 17, 2019, to present.

230. US. Steel?s publicly available mitigation plans show that, each day from
December 24, 2018, until at least April 4. 2019, 1.1.8. Steel burned COG at the Irvin Plant that
had not been processed by the Desulfurization Plant at Clairton Works.

231. Because US. Steel did not desulfurize the COG it produced at Clairton until at
least April 4, 2019, Plaintiffs believe that H28 concentrations in the COG at the Irvin Plant
continued to exceed 35 gr/dscf from March 17. 2019. until at least April 4, 2019.

232. US. Steel exceeded the H28 concentration limits in Irvin Permit Conditions
and

each day from December 24, 2018, until at least April 4, 2019.

36

233. Each day US. Steel exceeded each of the H28 concentration limits in the Irvin
Permit, US. Steel violated the Clean Air Act.

234. Each day US. Steel exceeded each of the H28 concentration limits in the lrvin
Permit, US. Steel violated the SIP.

C. Violations of Edgar Thompson Plant Hydrogen Sul?de Limits

235. The Edgar Thompson Permit imposes limits on the concentration of H28 in coke
oven gas used or combusted at the Edgar Thompson Plant.

236. Edgar Thomson Permit Condition prohibits the Edgar Thomson Plant
from flaring, mixing, or combusting COG in Blast Furnaces No. Stoves or Blast Furnace No. 3
Stoves unless the concentration of sulfur compounds in the COG is less than or equal to 35
grains per hundred dry standard cubic feet. Edgar Thompson Permit at 

237. Edgar Thomson Permit Condition prohibits the Edgar Thomson Plant
from ?aring, mixing, or combusting COG in the Dual Strand Continuous Caster shop unless the
concentration of sulfur compounds in the COG is less than or equal to 35 grains per hundred dry
standard cubic feet. Edgar Thompson Permit at 88.

238. Edgar Thomson Permit Condition prohibits the Edgar Thomson Plant
from flaring, mixing, or combusting COG in Riley Boilers No. 1, 2, or 3 unless the concentration
of sulfur compounds in the COG is less than or equal to 35 grains per hundred dry standard cubic
feet. Edgar Thompson Permit at 95.

239. H23 concentrations in the COG used or combusted at the Edgar Thompson Plant
are calculated at Clairton Works. See, Edgar Thompson Permit at 41.

240. No treatment occurs at the Edgar Thompson Plant to reduce the H28

concentrations in the COG received from Clairton Works.

37

241. In the Edgar Thompson Data, U.8. Steel reported to ACHD the daily H28
concentrations in the COG (in gridscf) for the Edgar Thompson Plant from December 24, 2018,
to March 16, 2019. The reported H28 concentrations were provided for two different locations:
the A-Line and the B-Line. Exhibit 6.

242. In the Edgar Thompson Data. the H28 concentrations in the COG at both locations
and on every day from December 24, 2018 through March 16, 2019, were higher than 35 gridscf.
The H28 concentrations ranged fromhigh of 239.5 gr/dscf at A-Line; and a
low of 122.1 to a high of 252.0 gr/dscf at B-Line. Exhibit 6.

243. Information available to US. Steel, but not currently available to the Plaintiffs.
contains the dates, locations, and amounts of the H28 concentrations in COG burned as fuel at
the Edgar Thompson Plant for the period from March 17. 2019 to present.

244. US. Steel?s publicly available mitigation plans show that, each day from Dec. 24.
2018, until at least April 4, 2019, US. Steel used COG as fuel at the Edgar Thompson Plant that
had not been processed by the Desulfurization Plant at Clairton Works.

245. Because US. Steel did not desulfurize the COG it produced at Clairton Works
until at least April 4, 2019, Plaintiffs believe that the H28 concentrations in the COG used or
combusted at the Edgar Thompson Plant continued to exceed 35 gr/dscf from March 17, 2019.
until at least April 4, 2019.

246. US. Steel exceeded the H28 concentration limits in Edgar Thompson Permit
Conditions and each day from December 24, 2018, until at least
April 4, 2019.

247. Each day US. Steel exceeded each of the H28 concentration limits in the Edgar

Thompson Permit, US. Steel violated the Clean Air Act.

38

248. Each day US. Steel exceeded each of the H28 concentration limits in the Edgar
Thompson Permit, US. Steel violated the SIP.

249. Because publicly available information reported by US. Steel shows that H2S
concentration limits for the COG at Clairton Works, at the Irvin Plant, and at the Edgar
Thompson Plant were also exceeded before the Fire, including on August 1 1-12 and September
10, 2017, and July 1 through August 2, 2018, the violations described in Count are likely to
recur after the ?ling of this Complaint. Edgar Thompson Semi-annual Report, July 1 through
December 31, 2017 at 10; Irvin Plant Semiannual Report, July 1, 2018 December 30, 2018.

250. Because the basic design of the Clairton Works and its pollution control units
have not been suf?ciently changed following the Fire. because at least one other serious ?re has
occurred recently in the pollution control unit area, and because US. Steel has not developed and
implemented a contingency plan suf?cient to prevent the combustion of Raw COG as fuel at the
Plants should Clairton Works? pollution controls again be rendered unavailable, the violations
described in Count are likely to recur after the ?ling ofthis Complaint.

COUNT IV: Violations of Sulfur Dioxide Limits

251. US. Steel determines the amount of its 802 emissions by using a formula that
relies on the daily volume of gas combusted at each 802 emission unit and the H28
concentrations in that gas, among other inputs. See Exhibit 7.

A. Violations of Clairton Works Sulfur Dioxide Limits

252. The Clairton Permit imposes limits on the rate and amount of sulfur dioxide (S02)
emissions from Clairton Works.

253. In the Clairton Data, US. Steel reported to ACHD the daily 802 emissions (in

pounds per day) from each of the permitted emission sources at Clairton Works from

39

December 24, 2018, to March 16, 2019. Exhibit 4. Dividing each daily S02 emission total in the
Clairton Data by 24 generates a pounds per hour emission rate for each source for each day.

254. Information available to US. Steel, but not currently available to Plaintiffs,
contains the dates, locations, and emission rates of 802 emitted by Clairton Works from March
17, 2019, to present.

1. Batteries 1, 2, and 3 Limits

255. Clairton Permit Condition sets an 802 limit of31.8 pounds per hour for
each combustion stack of Batteries 1, 2, and 3. Clairton Permit at 49.

256. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets rolling 30-day S02 limits of
10.41 pounds per hour for Battery 1 Under?ring, 9.15 pounds per hour for Battery 2 Under?ring,
and 10.57 pounds per hour for Battery 3 Underflring. Clairton Installation Permit at 19.

257. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets supplementary 24-hour 
limits, which are not to be exceeded more than three times consecutively, of 13.27 pounds per
hour for Battery 1 Under?ring, 1 1.66 pounds per hour for Battery 2 Underflring, and 13.47
pounds per hour for Battery 3 Under?ring. Clairton Installation Permit at 19.

258. The Clairton Data show that $02 emissions exceeded the pounds per hour limits
in Clairton Permit Condition for Batteries 1, 2, and 3 each day from December 24,
2018 until March 16, 2019.

259. The Clairton Data also show that S02 emissions exceeded the supplementary 24-
hour 802 pounds per hour limits in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition for

Batteries 1, 2, and 3 each day from December 24, 2018. until March 16, 2019.

40

260. The Clairton Data also show that $02 emissions exceeded the 30-day SO:
emission limits in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition for Batteries 1, 2, and 3
each day from at least January 7, 2019 until March 16, 2019. Exhibit 4.

261. Upon information and belief, emissions continued to exceed Clairton Permit
Condition and Clairton Installation Permit Condition at Batteries 1, 2, and 3
each day from March 16, 2019, until at least April 4, 2019.

2. Batteries 13, 14, and 15 S02 Limits

262. Clairton Permit Condition sets an S02 limit of 33.5 pounds per hour for
each combustion stack of Batteries 13, 14, and 15. Clairton Permit at 80.

263. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets rolling 30?day $02 limits of
13.93 pounds per hour for Battery 13 Underfiring, 14.03 pounds per hour for Battery 14
Under?ring, and 18.67 pounds per hour for Battery 15 Under?ring. Clairton Installation Permit
at 19.

264. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets supplementary 24-hour SO:
limits, which are not to be exceeded more than three times consecutively, of 15.70 pounds per
hour for Battery 13 Under?ring, 15.80 pounds per hour for Battery 14 Under?ring, and 21.04
pounds per hour for Battery 15 Under?ring. Clairton Installation Permit at 19.

265. The Clairton Data show that 802 emissions exceeded the pounds per hour limits
in Clairton Permit Condition for Batteries 13, 14. and 15 each day from December 24.
2018, until March 16, 2019.

266. The Clairton Data also show that 802 emissions exceeded the supplementary 24-
hour 302 pounds per hour limits in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition for

Batteries 13, 14, and 15 each day from December 24, 2018, until March 16, 2019.

41

267. The lairton Data also show that 802 emissions exceeded the 30-day SO:
emission limits in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition for Batteries 13, 14, and
15 each day from at least January 7, 2019, until March 16, 2019. Exhibit 4.

268. Upon information and belief, emissions continued to exceed Clairton Permit
Condition and Clairton Installation Permit Condition at Batteries 13, 14 and
15 each day from March 16, 2019 until at least April 4, 2019.

3. Battery 19 SO: Limits

269. Clairton Permit Condition sets an limit 01?61 .53 pounds per hour
for the Battery 19 combustion stack. Clairton Permit at 12.

270. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets a rolling 30?day limit of
29.37 pounds per hour for Battery 19 Under?ring. Clairton Installation Permit at 19.

271. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets a supplementary 24-hour
limit, which is not to be exceeded more than three times consecutively, of 33.09 pounds per
hour for Battery 19 Under?ring. Clairton Installation Permit at 19.

272. The Clairton Data show that 802 emissions exceeded the pounds per hour limit in
Clairton Permit Condition from Battery 19 each day from December 24, 2018 until
March 16, 2019.

273. The Clairton Data also show that $02 emissions exceeded the supplementary 24?
hour 802 pounds per hour limit in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition from
Battery 19 each day from December 24, 2018 until March 16, 2019. Exhibit 4.

274. The Clairton Data also show that 802 emissions exceeded the 30-day $02
emission limit in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition from Battery 19 each day

from at least January 7, 2019, until March 16, 2019. Exhibit 4.

275. Upon information and belief, S02 emissions continued to exceed Clairton Permit
Condition and Clairton Installation Permit Condition at Battery 19 each
day from March 16. 2019 until at least April 4, 2019.

4. Battery 20 S02 Limits

276. Clairton Permit Condition sets an $02 limit 01?61 .5 pounds per hour
for the Battery 20 combustion stack. Clairton Permit at 1 12.

277. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets a rolling 30-day limit of
27.00 pounds per hour for Battery 20 Underfiring. Clairton Installation Permit at 19.

278. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets a supplementary 24-hour
S02 limit, which is not to be exceeded more than three times consecutively, of 27.00 pounds per
hour for Battery 20 Under?ring. Clairton Installation Permit at 19.

279. The Clairton Data show that S02 emissions exceeded the pounds per hour limit in
Clairton Permit Condition from Battery 20 each day from December 24, 2018, until
March 16, 2019.

280. The Clairton Data also show that 802 emissions exceeded the supplementary 24-
hour 802 pounds per hour limit in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition from
Battery 20 each day from December 24, 2018 until March 16, 2019. Exhibit 4.

281. The Clairton Data also show that S02 emissions exceeded the 30-day 
emission limit in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition from Battery 20 each day
from at least January 7, 2019, until March 16, 2019. Exhibit 4.

282. Upon information and belief, emissions continued to exceed Clairton Permit
Condition and Clairton Installation Permit Condition at Battery 20 each

day from March 16. 2019, until at least April 4, 2019.

43

5. Battery 302 Limits

283. Clairton Permit Condition sets an limit of9l .5 pounds per hour for
the Battery combustion stack. Clairton Permit at 143.

284. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets a rolling 30-day limit of
21.38 pounds per hour for Battery Under?ring. Clairton Installation Permit at 19.

285. Clairton Installation Permit Condition sets a supplementary 24-hour
S02 limit of27.26 pounds per hour for Battery Under?ring. Clairton Installation Permit at 19.

286. The Clairton Data show that emissions exceeded the pounds per hour limit in
Clairton Permit Condition from Battery each day from December 24, 2018 until
March 16, 2019.

287. The Clairton Data also show that 802 emissions exceeded the supplementary 24-
hour 802 pounds per hour limit in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition from
Battery each day from December 24, 2018, until March 16, 2019. Exhibit 4.

288. The Clairton Data also show that $02 emissions exceeded the 30-day 802
emission limit in the Clairton Installation Permit Condition from Battery each day
from at least January 7, 2019, until March 16, 2019.

289. Upon information and belief, emissions continued to exceed Clairton Permit
Condition and Clairton Installation Permit Condition at Battery each day
from March 16, 2019, until at least April 4, 2019.

290. Each day US. Steel exceeded each ofthe S02 emission limits in its Clairton
Permits, US. Steel violated the Clean Air Act.

291. Each day US. Steel exceeded each ofthe emission limits in its Clairton

Permits, US. Steel violated the SIP.

44

B. Violations ofIrvin Plant Sulfur Dioxide Limits

292. The Irvin Permit imposes limits on the rate and amount of sulfur dioxide (S02)
emissions from the Irvin Plant.

293. In the Irvin Data, US. Steel reported to ACHD the daily 802 emissions (in
pounds per day) from each of the permitted emission sources at the Irvin Plant from
December 24, 2018, to March 16, 2019. Exhibit 5. Dividing each daily emission total in the
Irvin Data by 24 generates a pounds per hour emission rate for each source for each day.

294. Information available to US. Steel, but not currently available to Plaintiffs.
contains the dates, locations, and emission rates of SO: emitted by the Irvin Plant from March
17, 2019, to present.

1. Hot Strip Mill Reheat Furnaces Limits

295. Irvin Permit Condition sets an S02 limit of 30.12 pounds per hour for
each Hot Strip Mill Reheat Furnace. Irvin Permit at 38.

296. Irvin Installation Permit Condition sets an aggregated rolling 30-day
S02 limit of 108.63 pounds per hour for all Hot Strip Mill Reheat Furnaces together. Irvin
Installation Permit at 19.

297. Irvin Installation Permit Condition sets an aggregated supplementary
24-hour $02 limit, which is not to be exceeded more than three times consecutively, of 1 18.75
pounds per hour for all Hot Strip Mill Reheat Furnaces together. Irvin Installation Permit at 19.

298. The Irvin Data show that emissions exceeded the pounds per hour limits in
Irvin Permit Condition from each I-lot Strip Mill Reheat Furnace on the following

days: Dec. 25-31, 2018; Jan. 2-6, Feband 28, 2019.

45

299. The Irvin Data also show S02 emissions exceeded the supplementary 24?hour
pounds per hour limit in Irvin Installation Permit Condition from all Hot Strip
Mill Reheat Furnaces on the following days: Dec. 25-31, 2018; Ian. 2?6, 9-12, 16-19, and 24-28.
Jan 31-Feb. 2, Feb. 5-9, 13-17, 20-23, 2019.

300. The Irvin Data also show that 802 emissions exceeded the 30-day emission
limit in Irvin Installation Permit Condition from all Hot Strip Mill Reheat Furnaces on
each day from January 5 through March 8, 2019. Exhibit 5.

301. Upon information and belief, emissions continued to exceed Irvin Permit
Condition and Irvin Installation Permit Condition at the Hot Strip Mill
Reheat Furnaces on multiple days from March 16 until at least April 4. 2019.

2. Boiler No. 1 S02 Limits

302. Irvin Permit Condition sets an limit of 17.17 pounds per hour for
Boiler No. 1. Irvin Permit at 78.

303. Irvin Installation Permit Condition sets a rolling 30-day SO: limit of
7.88 pounds per hour for Boiler No. I. Irvin Installation Permit at 19.

304. Irvin Installation Permit Condition sets a supplementary 24-hour SO:
limit, which is not to be exceeded more than three times consecutively. of 8.92 pounds per hour
for Boiler No. 1. Irvin Installation Permit at 19.

305. The Irvin Data show that 802 emissions exceeded the pounds per hour limit in
Irvin Permit Condition from Boiler 1 on the following days: Dec. 27 and 28, 2018:

Jan. 10, Feb. 27. and 28,2019.

46

306. The Irvin Data also show that $02 emissions exceeded the supplementary 24-
hour S02 pounds per hour limit in Irvin Installation Permit Condition from Boiler 1 on
the following days: Dec. 27-29, 2018; Jan. 2-4, Feb. 5-9, 19-23, and Feb. 25- Mar. 1,2019.

307. The Irvin Data also show that 802 emissions exceeded the 30-day emission
limit in the Irvin Installation Permit Condition from Boiler 1 on the following days:
Jan. 5-17, 24, 25, Feb 15, and Feb. 18-Mar. 16, 2019.

308. Upon information and belief, emissions continued to exceed Irvin Permit
Condition and Irvin Installation Permit Condition at Boiler I on multiple
days from March 16, 2019, until at least April 4, 2019.

3. Boiler No. 2 SO: Limits

309. Irvin Permit Emission Unit Level Condition sets an 802 limit of 18.20
pounds per hour and 45.90 tons Boiler No. 2. Irvin Permit at 81.

310. Irvin Installation Permit Condition sets a rolling 30-day limit of
8.36 pounds per hour for Boiler No. 2. Irvin Installation Permit at 19.

31 I. Irvin Installation Permit Condition sets a supplementary 24-hour 
limit, which is not to be exceeded more than three times consecutively. of 9.46 pounds per hour
for Boiler No. 2. Irvin Installation Permit at 19.

312. The Irvin Data show that 802 emissions exceeded the pounds per hour limit in
Irvin Permit Condition from Boiler 2 on Jan 10. 2019.

313. The Irvin Data also show that SO), emissions exceeded the supplementary 24-
hour 802 pounds per hour limit in Irvin Installation Permit Condition from Boiler 2 on

each day from December 26 to 30, 2018.

47

314. The Irvin Data also show that SO: emissions exceeded the 30-day emission
limit in Irvin Installation Permit Condition from Boiler 2 on each day from January 5
to 14, 2019.

315. Upon information and belief, emissions continued to exceed Irvin Permit
Condition and Irvin Installation Permit Condition at Boiler 2 on multiple
days from March 16, 2019 until at least April 4, 2019.

316. Each day US Steel exceeded each ofthe emission limits in its Irvin Permits.
US. Steel violated the Clean Air Act.

317. Each day US. Steel exceeded each ofthe 802 emission limits in its Irvin Permits,
US. Steel violated the SIP.

318. Because publicly available information reported by US. Steel shows that H28
concentration limits for the COG at Clairton Works, at the Irvin Plant, and at the Edgar
Thompson Plant were also exceeded before the Fire, including on August 1 1-12 and September
10, 2017, and July I through August 2, 2018, the violations described in Count IV are likely to
recur after the ?ling of this Complaint. Edgar Thompson Semi?annual Report. July 1 through
December 31, 2017 at 10; Irvin Plant Semiannual Report. July 1. 2018 December 30. 2018.

319. Because the basic design of the Clairton Works and its pollution control units
have not been sufficiently changed following the Fire. because at least one other serious fire has
occurred recently in the pollution control unit area, and because US. Steel has not developed and
implemented a contingency plan sufficient to prevent the combustion of Raw COG as fuel at the
Plants should Clairton Works? pollution controls again be rendered unavailable, the violations

described in Count are likely to recur after the ?ling of this Complaint.

48

PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR MEMBERS ARE HARMED
BY CLEAN AIR ACT VIOLATIONS

320. Members of the Plaintiff groups live near, rent or own property near, and spend
time shopping, recreating, and conducting other activities near the Plants.

32]. Some of Plaintiffs? members live within as little as one-half mile of one of the
Plants. Other members live within one to three miles of one or more ofthe Plants.

322. Members of the Plaintiff groups reside in the towns of Clairton, Glassport, North
Braddock, and East Pittsburgh, 

323. Plaintiffs have members who breathe illegal emissions from the Plants.

324. Plaintiffs have members who can see air pollution coming from the Plants.

325. Plaintiffs? members notice and are bothered by noxious odors emitted from the
Plants, including ?rotten egg? odors, sulfur smells, and ?burnt-match? smells.

326. Plaintiffs? members who live near and spend time near the Plants experience
difficulty breathing, exacerbated asthma, and other respiratory that they attribute to
emissions from the Plants.

327. Plaintiffs? members who live near and spend time near the Plants experience
headaches.

328. Plaintiffs? members who live near and spend time near the Plants experience
fatigue.

329. From time to time, airborne soot from the Plants is deposited on the property of
some of Plaintiffs? members. The soot settles on their homes, is aesthetically displeasing, is
difficult to clean, and may corrode metal and other surfaces. Plaintiffs? members have a

reasonable fear that it is unhealthy for them to contact or to breathe the soot from the Plants.

49

330. Plaintiffs? members are also reasonably concerned that the presence of soot from
the Plants on their homes provides an indication that emissions of other, less readily visible
airborne pollutants from the Plants also reach their homes.

33]. Plaintiffs? members are reasonably concerned about having breathed carcinogens
emitted during U.S. Steel?s violations.

332. The odors and soot emitted from the Plants diminish Plaintiffs? members?
enjoyment of their homes, backyards, and neighborhoods.

333. The air pollution from the Plants? violations causes Plaintiffs? members to visit or
spend time outdoors in the areas surrounding the Plants less frequently than they otherwise
would.

334. Plaintiffs? members believe the experiences. conditions, and described
in paragraphs 323-33 are caused by the air emissions from the Plants, based on one or more of
the following factors: the proximity of one or more of the Plants to their homes or to the places
where they experience these impacts; the wind direction at the time they experience these
impacts; visual observations of smoke, soot, or dust emissions from the Plant; the fact that the
odors they experience are consistent with materials used or produced at the Plant; the absence of
any other possible sources of such emissions or odors in the area; and the abatement of these
conditions and when they leave Allegheny County.

335. Plaintiff?s members experienced markedly increased incidence and intensity of
the odors, degraded air quality, experiences, and physical and respiratory described in
paragraphs 323-28 and 331-33 immediately after the Fire, and these heightened and
air quality conditions persisted throughout the time that pollution controls at Clairton Works

were out of commission.

50

336. Plaintiffs? members restricted their outdoor activities more than usual because of
poor air quality following the Fire.

337. Plaintiffs have members who saw increased flaring at the Irvin Plant following the
Fire.

338. Plaintiffs were aware of, took seriously, and were alarmed by air quality
warnings in the months following the Fire.

339. The pollutants the Plants emitted during the alleged violations cause the types of
and conditions Plaintiffs? members have experienced.

340. Plaintiffs? members want to breathe as little air pollution from the Plants as
possible, and certainly do not want to breathe illegally emitted air pollutants.

341. Plaintiffs? members are reasonably concerned that the air pollution unlawfully
released from the Plants during the violations described in this Complaint has harmed, and
continues to harm and threaten, their health and their families? health.

342. The greater the number of exposures to hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter, and benzene and other volatile organic compounds, and the higher the levels
of those exposures, the more a person?s health is compromised. Reductions in the concentrations
of airborne hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and benzene and other volatile
organic compounds are beneficial to human health.

343. Plaintiffs? members are reasonably concerned about the ongoing effects on them
and their families of inhaling a large amount of unlawful pollution from the Plants in the few
months following the December 24, 2018, Fire. Plaintiffs? members want to off-set or mitigate

those effects by breathing less of the Plants? pollution in the future.

51

344. Plaintiffs? members fear that the Plants will once again continue production
without operating the necessary pollution control equipment and that they will, as a result,
breathe more illegally emitted air pollutants.

345. The actual and threatened harm to Plaintiff?s members would be redressed by an
injunction, civil penalty, and other relief that prevents or deters future violations of emission
standards and limitations, that requires US Steel to offset the pollution from these violations by
reducing their pollution to below lawful levels, or that otherwise remediates harm that has

already been caused to Plaintiffs? members and their local communities.

RELIEF QUESTED

Plaintiffs request that this Court:

a. Declare Defendant to have violated and to be in violation ofthe Clean Air Act
and the Plants? Title operating permits on each of the dates and by committing
each of the violations described in Counts I through 

in. Order Defendant to comply with the Clean Air Act and the Plants? Title 
operating permits, and to refrain from further violations of the emission standards
and limitations speci?ed in the Plants? Title operating permits;

Order Defendant to implement measures to remedy. mitigate, or offset the harm to
public health and the environment caused by the violations alleged herein;

d. Order Defendant to develop and implement a contingency plan to prevent
unauthorized combustion of COG as fuel or in flares when pollution controls are

inoperable;

52

e. Assess an appropriate civil penalty against Defendant of up to $97,229 per day for
each violation ofthe Act and applicable permits and regulations, as provided by
42 U.S.C. 7413(e) and 7604(a) and and 40 CFR 19.4, Table 2;

f. Order that $100,000 of the civil penalty to be used in bene?cial mitigation
projects that are consistent with the CAA and enhance the public health and the
environment in the areas adversely affected by US. Steel?s violations of the Act;

g. Award Plaintiffs their costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert
witness fees), as provided by 42 U.S.C. 7604(d);

h. Order such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

PLAINTIFFS,
PENNENVIRONMENT, INC. and CLEAN AIR
COUNCIL

?77:1er PM

Thomas J. Farrell 41.

PA ID No. 48976

Farrell. Reisinger Comber, LLC
300 Koppers Building

436 Seventh Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

(412) 894-1380


Dated: April 29, 2019

 

 

Joshua R. Kratka

Charles C. Caldart

Margaret M. A. Nivison

Pro hac vice motions to be ?led
National Environmental Law Center
294 Washington Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02108

(617) 747-4333


 

David Nicholas
Pro hac vice motion to be ?led

53

20 Whitney Road

Newton, Massachusetts 02460
(617) 964-1548

dnicholas] 00f?2gmaiLcom

 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

54