The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

Opponents cite ‘gaps’ in new SunCoke draft permit

Opponents of SunCoke facility voice concerns about permit issued by Ohio EPA.

Area religious leaders rally for health care reform
New 22 min. ago
Masked gunman attempted to rob wireless store, police say
3:25 p.m.
Local Buckeye Bash a “bust”
1:18 p.m.
Multiple cases of teacher misconduct a wakeup call for Northmont
11:00 a.m.
Ferguson attempts suicide after being found guilty on all 32 counts
10:05 a.m.
> More headlines

By Jessica Heffner, Staff Writer Updated 1:07 AM Thursday, July 30, 2009

MIDDLETOWN — SunCoke Energy project opponents have said that while they are pleased the company is pursuing a more stringent air emissions permit, they are concerned over potential gaps in the new draft permit issued by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

The state agency issued a draft New Source Review permit Monday, July 27, for the $340 million coke oven facility to be built in Middletown. It is the second permit to be considered for the plant, as the first has faced a myriad of questions and delays since it was issued by the Ohio EPA in November 2008.

Lisa Frye, a Monroe resident and president of opposition group SunCoke Watch Inc., said that she is concerned that the NSR’s requirement that SunCoke certify all its Ohio facilities are in compliance with their air permits is not being met. The company’s coking facility in Haverhill has two notices of violation pending with the Ohio EPA.

“Given the fact that it appears there are some rules and laws that have again been ignored at the expense of the elderly and children in our community, it’s difficult to look at this process at first glance as anything but a farce,” she said.

Heather Lauer, spokeswoman for the Ohio EPA, said the NSR permit will require SunCoke to only be in compliance with its air permit at the time it sends in a letter certifying that to the state agency. The fact that SunCoke is still working through violations at a facility does not affect the permit in this draft stage.

“They have to be able to certify at the time they send the letter that they are now in compliance. They can go out of compliance again, but at the time we receive the letter they have to certify the plant is in compliance,” she said.

The city of Monroe, which is adjacent to where the plant would be constructed, said it is still reviewing the draft permit. Chris Walker, an attorney representing Monroe on this issue, said it is too soon to comment specifically on those concerns but a cursory look at the draft revealed “some significant gaps.”

Both Walker and Frye emphasized that SunCoke’s pursuit of the NSR permit only confirms that the plant would be a major source of pollution and should be subject to more stringent Clean Air Act requirements not included in its original permit.

“They’ve done exactly what we said they should,” Frye said. “If we had not made a stand and said what you are doing is wrong, they would be building with a netting permit that we said all along was illegal. It shows the power of the people really does work.”

The city of Monroe has multiple legal actions pending in regard to the facility, including a Clean Air Act citizen lawsuit, an appeal with the Environmental Review Appeals Commission on the air permit issued by the Ohio EPA in November 2008 and an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court on the power siting certificate issued for the electric co-generation operations of the plant.

Walker said the pending actions against SunCoke could be impacted if the NSR permit is ever issued by the Ohio EPA.

“If it replaces last year’s permit, then the pending appeal of last year’s permit would probably be moot and the same thing with the citizen suit. If they can comply with the NSR, it would take care of most of the issues,” he said.

In addition to certifying all its Ohio plants are in compliance, the NSR draft permit also requires SunCoke’s new plant meet the lowest achievable emission rates, use the best available technology for air emissions and demonstrate that the air quality in Butler County will benefit from the project.

The company has received offset credits from other air pollution sources as part of the NSR draft permit. It currently names Procter & Gamble Co. in Cincinnati and AK Steel’s closure of the sinter plant in Middletown as offset sources.

AK Steel received verification from the Ohio EPA for its Emission Reduction Credit Generation request for the sinter plant July 16. Lauer said the agency is still awaiting a submission from P&G.

P&G spokesman Ross Holthouse said its available emissions credits are attributed to previous operations of facilities in the Cincinnati area and stem from an overall company effort to reduce its footprint. The credits primarily come from two facilities, one which was closed within the last 10 years and one that has reduced its emissions. Holthouse declined to identify either of those facilities.

A public hearing has been set by the Ohio EPA to discuss the draft permit at 6:30 p.m. Sept. 2 in Johnston Hall, Room 142 at Miami University Middletown, 4200 E. University Blvd., Middletown.

A copy of the application and a copy of the draft permit is available at www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/middletowncoke.html. Copies of the draft permit also may be viewed at the Middletown Public Library, 125 S. Broad St., Middletown, and the Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services, 250 William Howard Taft Road, Cincinnati.

Written comments on the draft permit must be submitted by 5 p.m. Sept. 8 to Mike Ploetz, Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services, 250 William Howard Taft Road, First Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45219.

Proposed maximum emissions for the SunCoke plant per year

Particulate matter: 168.9 tons

PM 10: 125 tons

PM 2.5: 112.2 tons

Sulfur dioxide: 1,152.3 tons

Nitric Oxide: 477.4 tons

Carbon Monoxide: 129.5 tons

Volatile organic compounds: 31.4 tons

Lead: .28 tons

Hydrogen Chloride: 118 tons

Sulfuric Acid: 34.15 tons

Mercury: 12.4 pounds

Share this article

ADD COMMENT

Comments feed

Oh, and Dorothy Lane Market.

MidTownDumb
3:11 PM, 7/30/2009

REPORT ABUSE

"...lead ,arsenic and PCB poisoning..."

You must mean "poisoning" from AK Steel and similar, high polluting American companies. I can't wait for GM to go bankrupt and ditch Delphi and then the tax payer has to clean up their manufacturing sites from DECADES of environmental poisoning.

And I don't shop at Wal Mart. I shop at Target, and Kroger, a couple Chinese groceries (locally owned, mind you), and this little, Indian grocery. That's about it.

MidTownDumb
3:10 PM, 7/30/2009

REPORT ABUSE

You are quit right Midtown it is far cheaper to manufacture in china. And when your family is sick and dying from lead ,arsenic and PCB poisoning. You can use all the money you saved by shopping at Wal-mart to pay their medical bills and burial costs.

Eric
11:06 AM, 7/30/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Once again I'm warning everyone - all of you that think this plant will result in more jobs are wrong. Why do you think AK chose not to build on their site? Because they would have to hire IAM employees.
If this plant is built, I am predicting that AK will shut down the Wilputte battery in Middletown and Ashland's battery - resulting in a loss of more than 200 jobs for AK employees.
How about this idea - build the plant where Towne Mall sits - it's still in Middletown and is dead anyhow.

ex-Armco
10:39 AM, 7/30/2009

REPORT ABUSE

And why would I give away MY appliances, made in foreign countries with foreign steel? It's not like they were made with anything American. Those jobs left a long time ago when unions ran the companies into the ground. And the company I work for is foreign owned to.

MidTownDumb
10:10 AM, 7/30/2009

REPORT ABUSE

There are 16 additional comments

SHOW ALL

We welcome your comments. Please remember this is a public forum and behave appropriately. Your comments must conform to our visitor's agreement.