Regional December 28, 2009 10:27 AM

Tonawanda Coke Arrest: Breathe Easy

Tonawanda Coke Arrest: Breathe Easy
Following up on last week's charges, Erie County Legislator Michele Iannello says residents may breathe easier following the arrest of Mark L. Kamholz, the Environmental Control Manager for the Tonawanda Coke plant.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that Kamholz has been charged with failing to notify government officials that levels of a hazardous substance beyond what U.S. code allows was being released into the air.  The complaint against Kamholz says he knew about the emissions, but failed to notify the feds.

Recently, the DEC released a study that revealed that air samples taken from the area around Tonawanda Coke had benzene levels that were up to 75 times more than the recommended guidelines.  Benzene is a proven carcinogen.

"For years, residents in my legislative district have been assaulted, yes assaulted, by toxins spewing out of Tonawanda Coke," Iannello began.  "The pollution emitted by this company fostered the community's outrage and activism that has given rise to the Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, founded by Jackie James-Creedon.

Iannello noted that, she has worked closely with the group to put pressure on the owner and other elected officials for the past two years. The Clean Air Coalition (CAC) held a rally in October where speaker after speaker expressed the community's anger over the failure of Tonawanda Coke's owner, JD Crane, to address their health concerns.  

"Victims of Tonawanda Coke's environmental crimes, demonstrated by Thursday's action in federal court, have sacrificed their right to privacy and publicly revealed medical conditions that − based on family history and lifestyle ─ could have no other genesis than the poisons spewing into the air of their neighborhood," Iannello continued.  "The company failed to notify the federal government that coal tar sludge was being stored in tanks that were open to the air."

"Plain and simple, the company broke the law ─ the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  They failed to obtain permits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), one can only surmise that the company was attempting to conceal its violations," Iannello added.

"The prosecution of corporate polluters will not restore the health, or bring back to life, those who were exposed to these toxins.  However, the public will see some evidence that the government agencies they have supported with their taxes will, in the end, hold the responsible parties accountable through our justice system.  It is small consolation for their suffering, but it may give them hope for the future of our youth to breathe air that will not poison them," Iannello concluded.

View image

Comments

Leave a comment

Don't forget that everyone who drives a gas powered car is also emitting benzine into the air every time they push the gas pedal. While not as concentrated as a factory like this there are MANY tens of thousands more tailpipes in much closer proximity to people around the region than Tonawanda Coke's smokestacks and the overall health problems spewed on all of us from vehicle exhaust are probably much higher than one company like this.

The company broke the law, and therefore deserves the consequences... but the people who really want to fight for air quality need to take into consideration all forms of pollution.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

...I'm sure the coke plant in China that will soon be replacing this one will have zero benzine emissions.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

and the workers there will enjoy a significant increase in their standard of living.


So much of an increase, that they will, like their western counterparts, begin to chose marginal environmental health gains over marginal increases in economic activity.

At that point, they will be brutally repressed by their central government for standing in the way of mandated 10% yearly-GDP growth, instead of being supported by their elected officials in holding polluters responsible for toxic effluent.

Democracy sucks. That was your point, right?

replied to benfranklin
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

If I were to make a similar leap as you, I'd conclude that you're for invading China, to correct some sort of abuse, which we will be incapable of ... because we can't produce the coke, to produce the steel, to produce the tank to fight the war that you would then surely object to. Democracy sucks? hardly.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Invade China was what you got out of that?

What I was suggesting was that the environmental hazards presented by the coke plant will be ignored as long as the marginal benefits of employment outweigh the marginal costs of pollution. In Tonawanda, it seems, that the community has rallied together and alerted their elected officials that the health hazards presented by the coke plant are not worth the economic benefits it provides. Due to differences in stand of living, workers in rural China do not have the material comfort to focus on environmental hazards. In time, they will develop a higher standard of living and begin to demand the same environmental protections that now exist across the developed world.

At that point, the will of the people will be crushed under the jackboots of 10% Yearly GDP expansion. Whereas, in this country, the elected are forced to respond to the health concerns of their constituents. You seem to have a problem with this and would prefer kowtowing to corporate desire, hence, democracy sucks.

I'm not opposed to a domestic steel industry, but it needs to be responsive to the health concerns of those living directly in it's effluent stream. Especially, when as a point-source of emissions, a capture system can effectively and inexpensively deal with the problem.

replied to benfranklin
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

the government just wants to control this mans money making industry.the government knows they need this plant to make steel so they want to control it!!!!

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Mark L. Kamholz is just another example of captialism with no business ethics and morality. In this case the government did step in and regulate the situation. In the past the goverment has faced the same issues but instead of confronting them sooner they opted later and costed themselves even more tax payers dollars to fix/correct the problem. Regardless WNYers are the only people who can truly care about their own environment. The government and industry have failed us numerous times before so constant vigilance by citizens is our only recourse. Kudos to the Clean Air Coalition of Western New York.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I get very concerned when an individual in a company is targeted rather than the corporation. Kamholtz could just be a patsy put in that position because he would rubber stamp what his boss said. A simple threat like "sign this or we will close the plant" or "sign this or your fired" or "you were hired to keep this plant open" is all it would take to brow beat someone.

I dont like the thought of the manipulators going free while the sacrificial lamb gets slaughtered even though it happens every day in corporate america.

replied to orlanmon
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Good point! I didn't take that viewpoint into account until you mentioned it. Thnx

replied to Destiny
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

The EPA has pretty solid whistleblower guidelines to prevent retaliation against employees who alert officials to criminal malfeasance.

The environmental control manager has legal responsibilities regarding the maintainence of environmental standards records and the reporting of that data to the EPA. Either the environmental control manager knew what was occurring inside the plant and shielded the plant from action, or was willingly ignorant of environmental issues in an effort to maintain plausible deniability. Regardless of circumstances, the ECM bears responsibility for the alleged environmental abuses of the plant.

replied to Destiny
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Good going Michele. At least you took a stand for the people you represent. Too bad you don't represent the 25,000 children under the age of 18 living on the West Side of Buffalo who don't have anyone to stand up for them as they breathe the toxins the PBA spews in the name of commerce and progress. Heck.......they care so little they would like to bring more diesel emissions to the neighborhood. After all, poor children don't deserve to breathe clean air! What people don't realize is the cost to the community. Each one of those inhalers.......and there are an unbelievable number filled at the local pharmacies each and every day......cost the taxpayers of Erie County! Now we have a Public Authority that can even operate above the law.....who will regulate and police the PBA when they feel they are a compact entity separate from the laws of any county, state or municipality.
PBA= Buffalo and Ft. Erie Public Bridge Authority.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Then move them away from the pollution.

replied to eam5
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

No, move the pollution away from the people. More affluent communities would never tolerate such a serious health threat, poorer communities should not either.

replied to jimmy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Why does everything you post have to be about your inferiority complex with the rich? I can understand the feeling of inferiority with the suburbs but you take it to an extreme. Give us a break already, the affluent are not the root of all that is wrong with Buffalo.

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Why are you an apologist for the rich? You seem uncomfortable whenever someone points out the inequities that exist in our society. The affluent are responsible for many of the problems that exist today. Greed has produced the two separate and unequal worlds that unfortunately has come to define Buffalo.

replied to jimmy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Nice attempt at turning this back at me to deflect the comment. The fact is that I am neither an apologist for the rich, nor am I uncomfortable with the discrepancies that exist in our culture. I don't agree with the wide disparity in wealth, but I don't use it as an excuse either. You, on the other hand, do use wealth as an excuse for why people are poor.

I think you see the wealthy as greedy and in a pursuit to acquire as much as possible at any cost. This isn't the case with most of the wealthy, just a small minority that you use to unjustly categorize all others. I also think you see the poor as selfless and giving, and we know that this is an over-generalization as well. There are greedy rich and there are greedy poor. There are selfless and generous rich and there are selfless and generous poor. Being wealthy does not make someone else poor, being poor does not make someone else wealthy. This is where your logic is flawed.

Poverty is the absence of wealth, it is a relative term. Poverty in America is wealth when compared to other countries. It is like saying that hunger is created by someone else having food, that is not the case. Hunger is caused by an absence of food, that absence exists in and of itself, not as a result of someone else having food. Unless the food was taken directly from the person who is hungry, or the wealth is taken from someone who is poor. That is not the case in America. You can try to draw a very thin and highly exaggerated line to make a correlation between the two, but correlation does not prove causality.

Capitalism is a system that creates wealth, and yes, it does create a disparity in the amount of wealth that people have. You may disagree with, or disprove of, the way that wealth is distributed, but it is an incorrect assumption to say that one person has wealth as a result of it being taken away from someone else. The one thing about this system is that it does offer opportunity for wealth generation by almost anyone. Not everyone will be at the top, but nearly everyone has the opportunity to create more wealth for themselves if they work for it. It is when we stagnate and expect to be taken care of that we lose the opportunity to improve our socioeconomic status. When we create self-defeating propositions and illogical arguments, like the one that says that I am poor because someone else is wealthy, we create a victim mentality. When we are in this victim mentality we tend to blame others for circumstances and situations in our own life, and explain away things that are within our control to change. In this case, we are using the illogical reasoning that one person's wealth is causing another person's poverty, thus excusing the poorer person from any responsibility or accountability for where they are in the socioeconomic spectrum.

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Wealth is finite as most wealth is derived from natural resources. To claim that the concentration of wealth at the top has not resulted in less wealth at the bottom is just silly. The loss of the middle class through union breaking, downsizing, and outsourcing is an obvious example.

Most big wealth in this country is inherited. Being born rich pretty much guarantees future prosperity, being born poor pretty much guarantees future poverty.

replied to jimmy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You love to perpetuate the stereotypes and common rhetoric that has been disputed and disproved time and time again. I understand that there is no getting through that thick head of yours. Your mind is made up, there is no sense in trying to talk reasonably with you. You are incapable of seeing more than the one perspective that you have convinced yourself as being true. I am done, you win, yes all poor are just helpless victims of the wealthy. We need to kill the rich to make the poor better off. Got it, understood, carry on with that and good luck. Having this discussion with you is like discussing race with a racist. You have your mind made up and no amount of facts or proof will change that.

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

jimmy- You seem to have a hard time accepting contrary points of view. Whenever your own opinions are challenged here on BRO you delve into personal attacks or threaten to take your ball and go home(not limited to our exchange). I actually found some of your posts interesting but your lack of tolerance limits real debate.

replied to jimmy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Wow, great "I'm rubber your glue" come back. I am not going to get into an "I'm not intolerant, you are" pissing match like some elementary school argument. You've got it, I am not taking my ball and going home, just not wasting any more time trying to discuss a complicated matter with someone who cannot see beyond the limits of their own personal biases. You have your mind made up on the way things are, there is no use in discussing it any further.

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I agree with much of what you say but at the same time there are decisions made by some that keep others from having the same opportunities to succeed that others have.

An education system based on property taxes only favors those who already have money. Education is a necessity for prosperity and Laptops for every child in Wheatfield is pitted against outdated text books on the east side.

or private developers, who for years refused to allow Public Transportation into their shopping (read job) centers. And some still do in some southern suburbs. You are in effect making it difficult (at best) and deadly (at worst) for someone to get and keep a job. At the same time we as a culture have been dismantling our public transit making it less reliable and efficient for those who need it most to reach all these jobs in the far flung areas of the county.

Not even to mention the need for such transit in the first place because of a concerted effort by the government after WWII to disperse industry \ population around our cities because of atomic bomb fears. It was a smart move at the time but really pitted city against suburb. Something no American city (except maybe two out west) has really figured out how to deal with yet.

Nothing is an excuse but at the same time there is a system and a game in place that has removed, dispersed and segregated opportunities. Unless you were born into a family that could buy you a car and in a neighborhood that would offer you an adequate education for even the most basic job, you are facing an uphill battle against other families and other neighborhoods. All this and race hasn't even been talked about.

Capitalism creates wealth \ disparities. Which is fine when everyone is given the same chances to succeed; but right now not everyone has the same chance. Physical location at birth is a growing indicator to the outcome of your life as anything else and that is what I have a problem with.

Our country is becoming very undemocratic... and I think the values of equality, freedom of choice and community responsibility are more basic to our country than just pure unadulterated capitalism. From the beginning the country pitted itself against companies that put their personal interests ahead of the community as a whole. Somehow in the last 50 years we forgot that we were a country first with companies in it and seem to becoming nothing more than a country created to serve the needs of business.

replied to jimmy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

SB>"Not even to mention the need for such transit in the first place because of a concerted effort by the government after WWII to disperse industry \ population around our cities because of atomic bomb fears"

Be careful SB. I made mention of this a few days ago and was called "conspiracy loon" among other names.

replied to Sean Brodfuehrer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Jimmy are you saying we ought to evacuate the Tonawandas Kenmore and other people downwind from this place so TC can break environmental laws in peace?

replied to jimmy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

No, I am saying that buying a house in the shadow of a factory is probably not the best idea, especially if you do not work at or near that factory. If you buy a house next to a dairy farm, you should expect the smell of manure when you wake up in the morning. You should not expect the farm to close because you don't like the smell.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

But so often that is exactly what does happen. There are many land use law cases about people moving into fresh new suburban subdivisions in the country, only to realize that the farm across the street is a farm. They spray manure... people complain... sue... and the farm to closes.

Which leads the farm owner to sell and more houses get built. Those formerly country suburbs are now is the middle of a whole neighborhood. The next group of new people then move further away 'to be in the country.'

Rinse and repeat... we loose our cities and we loose our country.

replied to jimmy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I don't disagree with you at all. In my opinion it is as wrong in the suburbs as it is in the city.

replied to Sean Brodfuehrer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

So TC can violate epa laws and those in the immediate area are to be blamed for being too close to a factory?

Also, most of the people negatively impacted by this place dont live in the "shadow" of the plant. People have identified benzene related cancer clusters in residential neighborhoods well east of TC.

replied to jimmy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I was referring to those who live in the shadow of the factory, like those who live in the shadow of the cow farm or the shadow of the peace bridge plaza. Those who live further away and now have health concerns can sue the plant for their gross negligence, that is their right. That said, they did know that there was a factory upwind of their residence. In fact, there are several factories upwind from their residence. Proving that their health concerns are attributed only to one factory, and not to the benzine emitted from cars on the nearby highways, or from other factories nearby, will be a challenge. I hope that this doesn't turn into a drawn-out court battle that results in more WNYers losing their jobs and another industry struggling to survive in our area.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Has anyone ever bothered to see where the main complainer lives? (Kaufman Ave.in Tonawanda)It's the only street with houses anywhere near Tonawanda Coke, FMC Chemical, NRG Huntley, NOCO Oil & Gas, Dunlop Tire, and some other companies that I can't remember. If your not familiar with it, then Google it. You will see that not only are they the only residences anywhere near these facilities, but the only ones in the arc of the 190 separating the river from the rest of Ton. First question I'd ask is Why would you buy or move into a house there? and two (as someone who occasionally deals w/ Ton Coke) how come the employees of these plants don't have a higher incidence of health issues? I'm not saying I'd want to live there BUT these "JOBS" have been here for over a 100 years and it's unbelievable that this women didn't know it wasn't a great location to buy a house 5 years ago when she move in!

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I was also interested in knowing where the complainers lived. At least to the block of the street level. I always assumed that most of the people who complained like in the neighborhood on the other side of Sheridan (Parkedge, Dupont, Dunlop). Like the names, see a trend?

I don't know much of the back story, whether or not she moved in only 5 years ago but if that is the case I don't have much pitty... you moved into the middle or edge of the largest still active industrial area in the region... what did you expect. Rolling hills and suburban charm.

This is the not the same as the PBA and the west side. Where a once elegant and formal entrance to the US, something that benefited the neighborhood, is being turned into a truck parking lot at the expense of the neighborhood. Which was there long before the bridge.

replied to GoBuffalo
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

We should not be considering just the immediate neighbors, this threat reaches far into the surrounding communities.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

You're right. Growing up in Riverside, we smelled the fumes from the plants on River Road in the early morning hours.

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Also growing up in Riverside I usually only noticed smell when the Huntley Plant was running spewing. 95% of the time it all blew east into Tonwanda \ Amherst but once and a while it shifted south.

Then again with GM, Dunlop, Dupont, NOCO, Praxair, TC all in the same area... it isn't very easy to know where a 'smell' is coming from.

The only way to really know who is polluting and where it is going would be to test all the companies around there to see what they individually are spewing and then to several radius tests to see what chemicals are reaching populated areas during various points in the year. Combined with a comparison to health records in the area.

I agree we also shouldn't just be considering the immediate neighbors but we don't know where the people who are complaining are from and where the incidents of higher health problems are located. It might very well be affecting a population further away more than these people but we just don't know.

It is certainly something we should know but the current hang the guy we think is the problem argument isn't helping anyone. How about some real methodical research from which to draw conclusions. The FBI found problems with TC. Good. When was the last time they checked out Dupont and Dunlop? Too many variables and not enough evidence.

replied to Blackrocklifer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Lots of blaming the victim in this discussion.

Im supprised more people are not upset about this company illegally putting the community at risk with toxins. Btw the "community" is anywhere downwind from TC like Tonawanda, Kenmore, Amherst etc. not just the immediate area. If you are going to blame people on Sawyer for exposing themselves to these pollutants you may as well blame everybody else due east.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

I am very upset by this flagrant disregard for EPA regulations. I am glad the company got caught and will close until they resolve their issues and come into compliance with emission requirements.

I do not, however, believe that we should permanently shut down the facility as a result of the recent actions taken against it. There are many people who moved into the area knowing full well the risks that come from living downwind of a coke refinery. Same goes for those who moved next to the oil refineries, peace bridge plaza, next to the railroad, etc. The local residents should be able to sue the company for damages and bodily harm that resulted from their disregard of policies and regulations, but not for every illness and problem that they have experienced in their lives. There is a lot of blaming on both sides of the fence on this one.

replied to Armchair MBA
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Agreed and if, with proper research, we realize that the regulations are still making people sick... Then it is time to revise the regulations.

replied to jimmy
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Absolutely, and we need better enforcement of the regulations that we currently have. It should not take a court order or police raid to enforce the emissions standards of this, or any other factory.

replied to Sean Brodfuehrer
Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

An easy testing system can be used to determine which plants emit what pollutants. Stop production at all plants except the one being tested and take measurements. Do this individually at all plants, then compare to the overall measurements when they are all in production. Determine which plants are emitting what portion of the overall pollution. Include traffic from the Thruway. Don't forget the radiation from the FUSRAP sites on River Road.

Total it up and then proscribe an area-wide pollution reduction strategy.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

It would be useful for those who comment on this story to
1. read the articles on the history of this problem. NYS DEC and EPA have done extensive testing to show that Tonawanda Coke emits huge amounts of benzene, far beyond truck or car traffic. The discussion of what testing needs to be done, or how to "prove" things above indicates that you have not availed yourselves of the information that is already out there, has been presented to the community and discussed widely in the press.

I appreciate that most are sympathetic with the need to reign this in, but really, complaining about the people in the neighborhood who, according to you should know better about where to buy their house, as if some should be damned to live in poisonous emissions, is as 19th century an attitude about public health as the 19th century operations at Tonawanda Coke.

2. get the facts correct, the chemical is benzene, not benzine.

3. Stop blaming the victims.

No one is immune to air pollution emissions in our region. Do your homework. This 2 square mile area has 50 sites permitted to emit air pollution. NO WHERE ELSE IN NEW YORK STATE HAS THAT CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTERS IN A SMALL AREA.

Again, if you had done some modest research in the press about the work that has been done, you would have learned that the reason EPA and DEC have done extensive studies, is that UNTIL the community did research, their own testing and presented this to agency personnel, the agencies themselves did not realize this problem.

Roy's policy suggestion is on target, even if he is not aware that the work he suggests (without shutting down the other plants) has already been done with careful science by DEC's year long focused air pollution study (and the sites are still collecting continuous data). Roy is correct that an area wide strategy needs to be accomplished, and the Clean Air Coalition is working with agencies and industries in the area that want to cooperate to achieve that.

But eliminating 10,000 pounds of annual benzene emissions from a single source, that lies to the government about their operations, 10,000 pounds annually of a known human carcinogen, is a clear and easy objective.

The Tonawanda and Buffalo area does not need to subsidize this type of health risk. Simple and effective technology investments would allow Tonawanda coke to operate with improvements all around.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

THE COMPANY'S OWNER/OPERATOR, MR. JD CRANE IS NOT CHARGED ALSO? SO, JUST WHY IS THAT? ---$MONEY TALKS AND HE WALKS.

THE OTHER EMPLOYEES & TOWNSPEOPLE STILL NEED THE COMPANY TO STAY AND DO ITS BUSINESS.

SURE LOOKS LIKE MR. MARK L. KAMHOLZ IS THE " D I " IN THIS CASE(DESIGNATED INMATE)!

WHAT A STUPID ROLE FOR TO PLAY. WHAT DO THINK OF DOGGED "COMPANY LOYALTY" NOW? ANYONE ELSE WANT HIS JOB?
JD WILL TAKE GOOD CARE OF HIM; I'LL BET.

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE CHINA AND MEXICO.....

Score: 0 ( 0 votes ) Vote up Vote down Report this comment

Leave a comment

Buffalo Rising Poll