Group Against Smog & Pollution

Hotline, Fall 1999

A GASP legal effort to subject Shenango, Inc., to penalties for its persistent violation of Allegheny County’s air quality standards may have prompted an enforcement action by the federal Environmental Protection Agency against the Neville Island coke producer. GASP had filed a sixty-day Notice of Intent To Sue on July 22, 1999. The EPA’s action, which supplanted GASP’s, came in September just as the sixty days expired.

In its action, the EPA asked for fines exceeding $3.2 milllion against Shenango for violations dating back to 1993, the year of a previous action against the firm.

William Luneburg, GASP legal counsel, said October 11 that GASP was now considering two courses: (1) asking the courts to allow GASP to join the EPA action as an intervenor, so as to encourage diligent prosecution of Shenango and to present views as to an appropriate resolution of the case, or (2) filing an independent action against Shenango, asking the courts to force Shenango to cease current violations and to pay penalties for past ones.

In the midst of these events came the unexpected news that Antaeus, Inc., the Australian owner of a new coke-making process, which had announced its plans to merge with Shenango and bring its process to Neville Island, had gone into receivership. Additionally, the entire American management team as well as a majority of the independent board members had also resigned. Efforts by GASP to contact Antaeus have been unsuccessful. Andrew Aloe, President of Shenango Inc., was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review as saying, “We (Shenango) have a license agreement for the technology, and we’re reviewing our options for the license agreement. We can act unilaterally because we have a license to the technology.”

The Allegheny County Health Department last May had granted Shenango a draft permit to construct new facilities for the Antaeus process. A public hearing on the draft permit then took place. The ACHD’s final permission was conditioned, however, on Shenango installing better functioning pollution control technology. That final permission has not yet been granted.

Exactly what results the present and prospective legal actions may accomplish is hard to predict. Although the EPA has censured Shenango and the Allegheny County Health Department has issued modest fines against the firm periodically for its violations, these penalties have been insufficient to end the firm’s frequent failures to control noxious emissions. It seems clear that neither agency has relished the prospect of putting a comparatively small producer out of business by rigorous enforcement of the law, such as by imposing fines so heavy as to cause Shenango to cease production.

This time much depends upon the intentions and attitude of the EPA, the most influential complaintant. The EPA had agreed to strong penalties in the past , but those penalties were not enforced and did not stop the emissions violations. “GASP’s hope in the present circumstances,” said Luneburg, “is to aid in bringing Shenango into real and effective compliance.”

As part of initiating action against Shenango, GASP held a public meeting on Nevillle Island on September 14. There, Walter Goldburg, GASP board member, provided visual documentation of the nature and scope of Shenango’s violations of air quality regulations. Bill Luneburg explained the legal issues involved.

Speaking from the floor, Myron Arnowitt, director of Clean Water Action in Western Pennsylvania, voiced that organization’s intention to join the projected GASP suit. Sandra Etzel, chief engineer of the Allegheny County Health Department’s Air Quality Program, spoke at some length in explanation of the county’s position. One speaker warned of the danger of job losses if Shenango were penalized too heavily.

Luneburg explained that the projected GASP suit might well be limited by action later taken by the EPA. That action came a week later with the suit by the EPA, joined by the Allegheny County Health Department, against Shenango in the U. S. District Court in Western Pennsylvania. The suit is one of civil contempt for failure to comply with that court’s previous consent decree of August, 1993.

by David Fowler, GASP Board Member