EPA

Since SunCoke's start-up, noise and light pollution concerns and odor complaints have been made on multiple occasions. SunCoke has now had their first formal EPA investigation following an incident on Thursday, Dec. 1, 2011, in which residents issued complaints to the EPA regarding particulate matter falling on their property.

Mike Ploetz’s statement in the Journal today is in need of correction. The EPA hasn’t confirmed it is fly ash. Although it may be true that fly ash isn’t “hazardous” – that is a legal term that applies to particular kinds of solid waste and is not typically applied to fly ash - it is well documented that fly ash (like other forms of coal ash) is typically toxic and contains various heavy metals that can be harmful to human health. I’ve formally requested that that EPA office issue a statement to the Journal correcting this inaccurate information printed today. The public has now been led to believe by the EPA that there are no potential health risks with what has occurred, which is inaccurate.

Here is the link to the story:

http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/suncoke-incident-u...

Below is a link to a report from the organization Physicians for Social Responsibility that talks about the health risks from coal ash. Much of this report is focused on the potential problems with coal ash landfills, which isn’t the issue here, but this report does contain a good description of the possible contents of fly ash and why it might be unsafe.

http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coal-ash.pdf

More info on fly ash:

Is Fly Ash Toxic?

On Sept. 22nd, SunCoke Energy's Middletown Operations submitted a Permit Modification request to clarify their "intent."  Seems all of the discussion over the years of "totally" enclosed conveyor belts are really just conveyor "covers" after all.  SunCoke is requesting that any reference to "total" or "totally" be stricken from the permit in regards to the enclosing of the conveyor belts. 

Click on the links below to track the air quality in our community. Also below is a link to the Middletown Coke Company monitoring.

http://www.hcdoes.org/airquality/webpages/aqindex.htm

http://www.hcdoes.org/airquality/Middletown/MiddletownCokeMonitoring.htm

http://ohioair.info/cinci2/pm25map2.php

The American Lung Association released its annual report on air quality, State of the Air 2011, which includes a list of the nation’s most polluted metropolitan areas.

Go to www.stateoftheair.org to review the data.

Rankings for Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington, Ohio-Ky.-Ind.
• Ranked 16 for high ozone days out of 277 metropolitan areas
• Ranked 43 for 24-hour particle pollution out of 277 metropolitan areas
• Ranked 9 for annual particle pollution out of 277 metropolitan areas

Attached is the Franklin County Court of Appeals ruling issued on April 7, 2011. Both SunCoke Watch, Inc. and the City of Monroe independent of each other filed appeals in the Court of Appeals in response to ERAC's decision to dismiss their appeals on the first netting permit issued to SunCoke.

ERAC had dismissed those appeals on the first netting permit when the NSR permit was issued and was unwilling to state that the permit was permanently void and unable to be revived. They also were unwilling to state that the right to appeal the first netting permit would still exist if SunCoke wanted to use the first netting permit if for some reason they no longer could utilize the NSR permit. Due to these legal holes still existing, the need to appeal was necessary.

The court clearly stated that should that circumstance arise, that the right to appeal would still exist.

http://mo.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/monroe-wins-a-rulin...

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.