On Wednesday, October 7th, at 5:30PM, members of the Clean Air Coalition of WNY will rally outside the Tonawanda Coke plant on River Road. In response to the plant owner J.D. Crane's continued refusal to meet with sick and concerned citizens, along with his unresponsiveness to elected officials, residents from Tonawanda, Kenmore, Grand Island and the City of Buffalo will gather across the street from the plant on River Road in Tonawanda to demonstrate against the high levels of benzene pouring out of Tonawanda Coke.
The parts of Buffalo hardest hit are Black Rock and Riverside.
In June, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation released the results of their year-long air quality study (see below). They found regional benzene levels to be greater than 75 times the EPA standards and identified 70 percent of the region's benzene was coming from Tonawanda Coke. Since then, no enforcement action has been taken.
The rally will feature remarks from community members who have fallen ill as a result of Tonawanda Coke's emissions. Erie County legislator Michelle Ianello, Bill Nowak, chief of Staff for State Senator Antoine Thompson and other elected officials are scheduled to speak out. The community group also has the backing of Assemblyman Sam Hoyt and Congressman Brian Higgins.
Crane has been invited to multiple community meetings to discuss potential solutions but has turned down every request. He has also been unresponsive to requests for a benzene reduction plan from elected officials.
The rally is coordinated by the Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, a grassroots community group that organizes residents to prevent and reduce pollution in the region. It will be held cross from the Tonawanda Coke plant. 3875 River Road, Tonawanda.
The following is a summary of the 2007-2008 NYS DEC Tonawanda Air Quality Study:
On June 12, 2009 the NYS DEC presented the findings of their year-long air quality study. This document breaks down their conclusions.
On benzene:
Who it affects:
Depending on wind direction, Volatile Organic Compounds, specifically carcinogenic benzene, are carried across Tonawanda Coke's fence line into neighborhoods in Tonawanda, Grand Island, Kenmore and north Buffalo. Certain neighborhoods in the Town and City of Tonawanda are the most affected by Tonawanda Coke's benzene emissions.
Current Action being taken by the DEC:
*Note - regulatory action is not included in the DEC's next steps.
On Tonawanda Coke:
"According to the NYS DEC, JD Crane, owner of Tonawanda Coke, has agreed to control emissions from the "ammonia still" by the Fall of this year; This project will reduce ammonia emissions by approximately 800,000 pounds per year and smaller but significant amounts of benzene, toluene, xylene, and naphthalene."
Tonawanda Coke has not yet made a public statement affirming the controls will be installed.
View image
The parts of Buffalo hardest hit are Black Rock and Riverside.
In June, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation released the results of their year-long air quality study (see below). They found regional benzene levels to be greater than 75 times the EPA standards and identified 70 percent of the region's benzene was coming from Tonawanda Coke. Since then, no enforcement action has been taken.
The rally will feature remarks from community members who have fallen ill as a result of Tonawanda Coke's emissions. Erie County legislator Michelle Ianello, Bill Nowak, chief of Staff for State Senator Antoine Thompson and other elected officials are scheduled to speak out. The community group also has the backing of Assemblyman Sam Hoyt and Congressman Brian Higgins.
Crane has been invited to multiple community meetings to discuss potential solutions but has turned down every request. He has also been unresponsive to requests for a benzene reduction plan from elected officials.
The rally is coordinated by the Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, a grassroots community group that organizes residents to prevent and reduce pollution in the region. It will be held cross from the Tonawanda Coke plant. 3875 River Road, Tonawanda.
The following is a summary of the 2007-2008 NYS DEC Tonawanda Air Quality Study:
On June 12, 2009 the NYS DEC presented the findings of their year-long air quality study. This document breaks down their conclusions.
On benzene:
- On average, Benzene emissions are 85 times higher than the EPA guideline.
- 70% of the region's benzene is coming from Tonawanda Coke
- Slide 32 provides a compelling graph comparing the guideline to the amount of benzene in Tonawanda.
Who it affects:
Depending on wind direction, Volatile Organic Compounds, specifically carcinogenic benzene, are carried across Tonawanda Coke's fence line into neighborhoods in Tonawanda, Grand Island, Kenmore and north Buffalo. Certain neighborhoods in the Town and City of Tonawanda are the most affected by Tonawanda Coke's benzene emissions.
Current Action being taken by the DEC:
- Continued sampling at Grand Island Boulevard and Brookside Terrace site
- Continue compliance inspections of major area sources
- Use the inspection and monitoring results to make decisions about revising current NY State source category specific regulations
- Use the inspection and monitoring results to make decisions about requiring a greater degree of air pollution control at specific sources using current NY State regulations.
*Note - regulatory action is not included in the DEC's next steps.
On Tonawanda Coke:
"According to the NYS DEC, JD Crane, owner of Tonawanda Coke, has agreed to control emissions from the "ammonia still" by the Fall of this year; This project will reduce ammonia emissions by approximately 800,000 pounds per year and smaller but significant amounts of benzene, toluene, xylene, and naphthalene."
Tonawanda Coke has not yet made a public statement affirming the controls will be installed.
![[XML element 'prod_name_2' contains multiple values]](http://store.buffalorising.com/Imgs/Product_Imgs/small/BestOfBuffaloBasket_S.jpg)
The plant has probably been there over 100 years. I would guess it was nearly all farmland around it when it started operations. It's kind of like buying a house near the airport to save some money and then complaining loudly that the government should do something about the noise.
As a small business owner, you can't keep changing the rules and expect it to remain in business.
Questions you need to ask are:
1) Who should pay the cost of the ever-changing rules? If your making up new rules then you should pay for the changes required..not the business owner.
2) Why be miffed when the owner doesn't show up for your meetings? Would you go somewhere willingly to be attacked by a small group of "concerned citizens” with nothing to gain? I wouldn't and I'm sure most people wouldn't show up either.
3) If Tonawanda Coke should go under, who pays for the lost tax revenues, employee jobs and the multiple support businesses that rely on it. i.e. Conveyor Belt Suppliers, Processing Equipment, Maintenance Support, Coal Mines, Lake Freighters, Trains, Trucks, ect....
4) Who pays the cost to clean up the vacant land and what re-use possibilities does it have? 30 years later in Lackawanna should give you some ideas...How is that going?
5) Is it any better having the product made elsewhere (China) where there is absolutely no oversight.
Instead of being confrontational, people need to come up with solutions. It can't be a vendetta.
My neighborhood is affected and has been settled for over 185 years, we were here long before Tonawanda Coke.
Your analogy of "buying a house near the airport and complaining about the noise" doesn't hold up, noise is just a nuisance, benzene a dangerous chemical.
Tonawanda Coke is not mom and pop "small business" as you infer.
Questions we need to ask are;
1.) Would such an operation be tolerated in a more affluent community?
2.) Shouldn't any business be expected to take all possible precautions to protect the health of their neighbors?
3.) Wouldn't it be more reasonable to ask those that profit from the operation to invest in remediation efforts rather than expect area residents to risk their health?
I like your comments, though I agree with Blackrocklifer in his. I think we need to be sensitive to the business climate. Shutting down Tonawanda Coke might be in the region's best interest overall, but it certainly wouldn't come without at least some negative impact to the economy. That doesn't mean that jobs and tax revenues trump community health, but we should acknowledge the impacts of compliance. I agree with you on that point.
With regard to your objection to 'changing the rules' and who should pay:
Our awareness of environmental issues has sharpened considerably over the past five decades. Earlier generations thought little of dumping toxic materials into the nearest stream. Now we recognize the connections between toxicity and poor health. Every business operator should expect to adapt operations so as to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. That's just common courtesy: you do what you want over there on your property, just don't hurt me by doing it.
That elimination of pollution will increase the cost of production, true, but at least the cost will be born appropriately by those consuming the product. Today there is a disconnect in our system. A manufacturer produces something and a consumer buys it. Fine and well, except that too often toxic byproducts created during production are then thrust out into the biosphere where the general public is compelled to pay for cleanup and disposal. Instead of the manufacturer accounting for the life cycle costs of his product, he passes off these indirect costs to others. Insurance companies are compelled to pay higher bills, the public health is adversely impacted, the disposal of the product at the end of the life cycle is often paid for by the taxpayer. It is fundamentally unfair to force disinterested third parties to financially subsidize profit making enterprises in this way. Producers and consumers shouldn't expect the general public to chip in to the deal just so that the consumer can pay less. Those buying a product should be compelled to pay for all of the costs of that product. Those producing should be compelled to pay for all of the costs of production.
You worry that the business will simply close, production will move to China or some other marginally regulated economy and cause greater pollution there. Fair concern. But we can address that other ways. Instead of the mantra of 'free trade' we should construct a system of trade which values clean production; call it 'clean trade'. Europe would fall right in line, they're all tree huggers. So would Chinese workers. The green movement is mushrooming in China.