EPA

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.

Across nation, controversies brew over possible toxic emissions

This is a USA Today article from 9/14/09, in which the SunCoke battle in Middletown, OH is listed as one of the three legal disputes across the nation being discussed.

..."The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency last year granted SunCoke Energy a permit for the plant, which would make the coal-based fuel that melts iron ore for steel mills. State officials have endorsed the plant, saying it is needed to supply an AK Steel mill that employs 2,000 people in a town hard-hit by the recession. A neighboring town, local activists and national environmental groups oppose the plant, saying it is a threat to public health. The plant would be built next to Amanda Elementary School, a nursing home and a residential neighborhood."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-09-14-toxic_N.htm

Attached is the court order signed by Judge Sheeran granting SunCoke Watch Inc.’s Motion to Intervene in the legal process challenging ERAC’s recent rulings regarding one hour hearings.

On September 16, 2009, The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a Motion to Intervene in the Ohio Court of Appeals regarding the ERAC hearing procedures issue. Currently, the Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC), as a result of recent legislative decisions, is only allowing de novo hearings to be one hour - hearings which previously could last days. Several companies have filed a lawsuit and this motion is to intervene in that lawsuit.

Attached are the documents filed in the Ohio Court of Appeals.

Following is a link to a Journal article on September 11, 2009. Ohio EPA’s proposed approach would essentially render the compliance certification provision worthless, because most any plant can be made to run in compliance for at least one day no matter how bad of a compliance history they have.  The goal of OEPA seems to only be to assist SunCoke in producing a "letter" to satisfy a requirement.  This approach fails to certify that SunCoke is truly in CONSISTENT compliance and is committed to running their facilities within the confines of their permit.  A "letter" from one day hardly ensures compliance and in no way guarantees on any level a commitment to protecting the health of the community - which is what the OEPA is mandated by law to do.  Most anyone can clean up their act for a day! 

Journal article...

SunCoke certified its compliance Aug. 28, despite several seemingly unresolved notices of violation issued by the U.S. and Ohio EPAs for the company’s Haverhill North Coke Company facility in Franklin Furnace, Ohio.

However, these violations, while unresolved, would have no impact on SunCoke’s ability to certify compliance as long as its facilities were operating within regulation Aug. 28. The company only needs to prove it was following the emissions guidelines for that one day for the certification to qualify for the NSR permit. The company could go out of compliance at a facility again, but it would not affect its certification, said Heather Lauer, spokeswoman for the Ohio EPA.

“(SunCoke) needs to prove it was operating that day and was in compliance that day they certified,” she said. “It does not mean the certification is not valid because the violations have not been resolved.”

READ MORE http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/violations-may-not...

On September 11, 2009, Lisa Frye received this statement in an email from USEPA Region 5 in response to an email sent to them on 8/31/09 asking for clarification on the status of the USEPA violations against SunCoke:

“I can tell you that the alleged violations against Haverhill North Coke Company have not been resolved.”

Sunoco sent a letter to OEPA on Friday, August 28, 2009 stating they were certifying they were in compliance - a legal requirement for NSR permitting. 

This email received on 9/11/09 stating the issues have not been resolved was received 12 days after the letter was sent.