Lawsuit against U.S. Steel claims pollution from Clairton Coke Works harming residents |

Lawsuit against U.S. Steel claims pollution from Clairton Coke Works harming residents

Aaron Aupperlee
Jasmine Goldband | Trib Total Media
U.S. Steel employees and visitors tour the C Battery during opening day ceremonies Jan. 31, 2013 for the new facility at the Clairton coke making plant.

Cheryl Hurt can see the stacks of U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works from the window of the day care see runs out of her home.

And she checks them everyday before she lets the children outside to play.

“I look at the sky to see how bad the smoke is coming out of the stacks,” Hurt, a lifelong Clairton resident, said.

Hurt and John Marcus, of neighboring Jefferson Hills, have sued U.S. Steel over emissions from its Clairton Coke Works. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, alleges that U.S. Steel failed to contain toxic and hazardous substances and that the pollution has harmed people living near the coke works and hurt property values.

Meghan Cox, a spokeswoman for U.S. Steel, said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit claims that pollution from the coke works exposes people to sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, ammonia, benzene, carbon disulfide, lead, naphthalene, toluene, a mix of methane, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and other toxic and hazardous chemicals. The pollution has been linked to heart and respiratory diseases, cancer and asthma. Hurt said many children need to use inhalers while playing sports because of asthma and it seems like everyone in town has a relative or knows someone with cancer.

“We want to breathe,” Hurt said. “Bottom line, we want to breathe.”

Downtown attorney Rob Peirce said several Clairton residents contacted his law firm with concerns about the coke works. Hurt and Marcus have requested that the lawsuit be a class-action suit. As a class-action suit, people living within about three-mile radius of the coke works could join. About 7,000 people are possibly affected by the coke works, Peirce said.

U.S. Steel agreed to make improvements at the coke works last year in a settlement with the Allegheny County Health Department. The agreement required U.S. Steel to inspect the walls of the coke ovens and come up with a plan to fix them, meet standards to limit pollution within three years, keep coal inside ovens for less time to reduce emissions and make observations of smoke plumes from equipment several times a day.

U.S. Steel paid nearly $4 million in fines to the county since 2009 because of emissions violations.

Hurt said she feels the county as well as state, federal and local governments, haven’t done enough to fix the problem.

“It’s time that we try to correct some of the things that are wrong,” Hurt said. “Something has to happen in terms of correcting the pollution that we’re exposed to.”

Aaron Aupperlee is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at [email protected], 412-336-8448 or via Twitter @tinynotebook.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.