EPA

Attached are four documents for your review: Monroe's Motion for Clarification, SunCoke, AK Steel and the OEPA’s Joint Response to Monroe’s Motion for Clarification, SunCoke Watch, Inc.’s memo of support and Monroe’s subsequent response.

To summarize, Monroe asked the Environmental Appeals Commission to state that the netting permit (1st permit) is truly moot and would be unable to be resurrected if/when the New Source Review permit is overturned. The Commission stated it was void, but didn’t speak to what would happen in that instance.

ERAC has denied the City of Monroe's clarification request, which has resulted in SunCoke Watch and the City of Monroe filing separate appeals with the Franklin County Court of Appeals. Appealing to the court was necessary in order to ensure that justice is served and that our ability to challenge the first netting permit still exists if our opponents ever attempted to fall back on that permit with a defeat of the NSR permit in court. As it stands now, our appeals have been dismissed, but ERAC has been unwilling to state that the first netting permit is permanently void/moot regardless of what happens with the NSR permit. Initially we were encouraged by ERAC’s willingness to define supersede as void, but after further legal evaluation the definition wasn’t taken far enough for our legal comfort.

If our opponents would ever choose to resurrect the first netting permit and our appeals were not in existence for our “day in court,” then SunCoke could potentially be allowed to construct and function under that first permit without any legal challenge in a court of law due to ERAC's decision rendered without addressing what would happen in this instance.

The attachments are self explanatory.

I went back and found this quote from SunCoke:

Comments have been submitted on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council and SunCoke Watch, Inc. regarding the Ohio EPA's draft administrative modification of the permit-to-install for DEGS Facility, which was originally permitted and built by Procter and Gamble.

The Ohio EPA is attempting nine years after this permit was issued in 2001 to "correct the amount of remaining emissions available to be used as emissions credits." It's obvious the only reason that the Ohio EPA is taking this administrative action nine years later is to assist SunCoke in locating available ERC's (Emission Reduction Credits) for their New Source Review permit on the border of Middletown and Monroe.

The comments are attached and clearly summarize the legal issues at hand. Also attached is the draft permit modification.

SunCoke Watch, Inc. and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a joint Notice of Appeal on March 10, 2010 with the Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) on the Director's issuance on February 9, 2010 of a Final Air Pollution Permit to Install ("PTI") to the Middletown Coke Company.

Yet another violation issued to the Haverhill North Coke Company on February 17th, 2010 by the USEPA!

Please note page 7 of the PDF, which identifies SO2 violations of 232% over the permit limit, PM violations of 644% over the permit limit, and "excess bypass venting" that "collectively constitutes 116 rolling months of failure to comply with operational standards" since Jan. 1, 2009.

SunCoke's compliance certification letter is dated August 28, 2009 (see attachment). This 2/17/10 NOV clearly shows on page 7 of the PDF that SunCoke was NOT in compliance in the month of August - or any month last year for that matter!

SunCoke’s negligent environmental actions once again documented.

Monroe, Ohio, February 23, 2010

Citing significant legal and technical flaws in Middletown Coke Company's recently-issued New Source Review air pollution permit, Monroe City Council has directed its lawyers to appeal the permit to the Ohio Environmental Review Appeals Commission. Council's approval came at its regularly-scheduled meeting this evening.

According to the resolution approved by Council, Monroe "remains committed to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of itself and its citizens and will pursue actions necessary to insure that all federal and state laws and regulations are met" with regard to the coke plant.

The new permit fails to hold Middletown Coke to more stringent emission standards and pollution controls that apply to similar coke plants throughout the U.S., including Middletown Coke's own sister facility in Haverhill, Ohio. Applying those more stringent requirements to the Middletown Coke plant would further reduce the
emission of harmful pollutants by as much as 300 tons/year. "By
law, Middletown Coke must comply with the lowest achievable emission rates in the country," explained Christopher Walker, an environmental attorney representing Monroe. "You can't say this will be the cleanest coke plant in America when even SunCoke's other facilities are subject to greater control requirements."

Monroe Mayor Robert Routson added, "As a result of the efforts of Monroe and others, Middletown Coke is now subject to a New Source Review permit that reduces emissions from the coke plant by over 500 tons/year. That's a nearly 20% reduction from the emission levels in the original permit. However, we expect Ohio EPA to control emissions from the coke plant to the fullest extent required by the law. It is not acceptable to risk the health of 12,000 Monroe citizens for the sake of 75 permanent jobs."

A federal judge has ruled that the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has violated the Clean Air Act for more than three years.

Magistrate Mark R. Abel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled yesterday that the Ohio EPA has given small businesses permission to pollute the air.

The decision reverses a 2006 state law that let businesses use less than the "best available" scrubbers and filters if they emit less than 10 tons of air pollution a year.

The Sierra Club sued, arguing that the change would worsen air pollution problems across Ohio. It also said the law violated a provision of the Clean Air Act that orders Ohio and other states to show how any rule changes would not worsen air pollution.

Read more
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/03/Feder...

Click on the attachment to read the federal court order in the Ohio EPA case.

Attached is a statement issued by the Ohio Attorney General's Office on behalf of the Ohio EPA regarding the status of the draft NSR permit following a request made by the ERAC Commission. It is reported that "At this time, Ohio EPA is unable to state with specificity when, if at all, a final NSR permit will be issued. Ohio EPA is in the process of responding to comments and questions from U.S. EPA regarding the permit." This Status Report was served to all involved parties on December 16, 2009.