warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/monroel/public_html/drupal-6.19/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 34.

EPA Public Hearing on TV Middletown beginning on September 13th at 3:00 p.m.

TV Middletown will be airing the EPA hearing from September 2nd on the following dates at www.tvmiddletown.org:

Sunday, September 13th at 3:00 p.m. and late that evening at 1:30 a.m.

Tuesday, September 15th @ 9:00 p.m. and late that evening at 1:30 a.m.

Wednesday, September 16th at 5:00 p.m.

Once the first one is aired on September 13th, it will automatically load on the website so it can be seen over the web at http://tvmiddletown.blip.tv/.

It will be listed as the OEPA public hearing from September 2nd. This is only the “public hearing” portion of that meeting, as the question and answer time, which was quite lengthy, was not recorded.

Haverhill North Coke Facility is considered "HPV" - High Priority Violator by the USEPA

"The applicant (SunCoke) must certify that all existing major stationary sources owned or operated by the applicant (or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the applicant) in Ohio as the proposed major stationary source or major modification are in compliance with all applicable emission limitations and standards under the Clean Air Act (or are in compliance with an expeditious schedule which is federally enforceable or contained in a court decree."

Attached is a summary of six (6) Notices of Violation and one (1) warning letter issued by Portsmouth Air Agency to Haverhill North Coke Facility and two (2) USEPA NOV's issued.  To date, the 7/17/09 two NOV's and the two USEPA NOV's are unresolved.

On Friday, August 28, 2009, Sunoco issued a statement certifying that their facilities were in compliance in an attempt to satisfy this Clean Air Act requirement for the Middletown Coke NSR permit.  I've attached the letter for your review.

You can also visit the following EPA database to locate compliance information:


Summarized below is additional violation information for SunCoke, Sunoco and AK Steel:

Haverhill North Coke Facility

U.S. EPA’s Enforcement & Compliance History Online (“ECHO”) database reports that the Haverhill North facility has been a High Priority Violator (“HPV”) of Clean Air Act requirements since July 2008. HPV is the “most serious level of violation noted in EPA databases,”[1] and those violations are identified as unaddressed on the database. The ECHO report notes violations of PSD requirements at the facility for the last four quarters, and of the sulfur dioxide requirements for the current quarter.

Sunoco, Inc. Haverhill Facility (Sunoco is the parent company of SunCoke)

Officials say SunCoke certification in doubt

State officials said they are unsure whether a certification submitted by SunCoke Energy that its Ohio facilities are in environmental compliance will meet requirements for a new permit it is seeking for a Middletown plant.

Read More http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/suncoke-certificat...

Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) issues Notice and Cancellation of Hearing; Federal Lawsuit filed by the City of Monroe is dismissed on policy grounds, not due to the merits of the case

On August 19, 2009, the Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC) issued a Notice and Cancellation of Hearing on the appeals filed on the Middletown Coke Company netting permit-to-install.  The Notice states "To comply with amendments to Ohio Revised Code ("R.C.") 3745.05(F) adopted in the biennial budget bill, please be advised that the de novo hearing scheduled in the above-captioned matter is hereby cancelled.  Further, any existing deadlines and proceedings currently scheduled in this action are suspended.  To conform to the mandate..., this matter will be scheduled for a one hour de novo hearing, to be held after January 1, 2010...A written order affirming, vacating, or modifying the action appealed from will be issued by the Commission no later than July 15, 2010."

Layman translation:  This hearing was scheduled in February 2010 for one full week of testimony for the appeals filed.  It is impossible for the citizens who oppose permits issued by the Ohio EPA to have due process with only one hour allotted for such a hearing.  Numerous other ERAC appeals pending in the state of Ohio are also effected by this bill, not just those appeals involving the Middletown Coke permit.

On August 20, 2009, Judge Dlott dismissed the federal lawsuit filed by the City of Monroe against Middletown Coke Company. 

The Order states:

"SunCoke - Your actions speak so loudly we can't hear what you are saying!"

Seems Mr. Golembeski isn’t in touch with the actual practice of his Haverhill North Coke Company owned by Sunoco/SunCoke. Following are his statements in the paper on 7/29/09:

“As we’ve said all along, we are pursuing the New Source Review permit to eliminate any doubt about the project’s environmental permitting. We are committed to operating all of our facilities in a safe, reliable and environmentally sound manner,” said Thomas Golembeski, spokesman for SunCoke.

As you can see from reviewing the attached documents, Haverhill has once again had difficulty maintaining compliance. This was only 10 days prior to OEPA issuing the NSR draft permit to SunCoke for the Middletown facility. By law, they have to certify that all of their facilities in the state are in compliance for NSR permitting.

Additionally, Heather Lauer, OEPA spokeswoman, stated in the paper on 7/30/09 that “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.

Based on the plethora of violations issued to HNCC, it seems they may have difficulty finding a DAY they can issue a letter stating SunCoke is in compliance!

What a Coke Plant Next Door Really Means to You

Separating Spin from Reality

SunCoke, a subsidiary of Sunoco, and AK Steel propose to build a 100 oven coke making plant on the border of Monroe would have you believe that there will be no harmful effect to our community. The well-funded supporters of the project ask you to focus on the jobs they claim will result and they throw around terms like “green” and “environmentally friendly.”

Breaking News: The Ohio EPA is now attempting to re-write rules that are protective of human health to make it easier for these two Fortune 500 Companies to make the air in Butler County more hazardous.

Here are some of the most common arguments supporters make and the REALITY:

Supporters say the project has been approved by the EPA – It is true the EPA has issued a permit, which we believe is flawed. More importantly, the supporters want you to assume the EPA considers all aspects of a proposed project including its location. The Truth Is – The Law Prevents the EPA from Considering the Location of the Plant – The EPA is not allowed to weigh the impact this plant would have on the children attending Amanda Elementary School, the frail residents of Garden Manor Retirement Village or the families residing in surrounding neighborhoods.


USA Today US Map of Cancer Risk

Butler County is rated as one of the highest cancer risk areas in the nation and is coded in BLACK on the map.


SunCoke air monitors first required by permit, officials say

A meeting with HCDES and the OEPA regarding proposed locations of air monitors for the Middletown Coke Company project occurred on June 25th. Although Middletown Coke is currently not constructing and is pursuing a new permit, the EPA has to proceed with the locations of the monitors since they have a permit-to-install. The EPA states this is the first time they've required ambient air monitors in a permit, which further confirms that a coke plant proposed in the middle of an elementary school, nursing home and residential area is by no means a typical scenario. Further, Middletown Coke will know the schedule of the monitoring samples since they are every 3rd, 6th and 12th day, which the EPA confirmed could allow the facility to alter operations to lower monitored emissions. For more information, go to http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/middletown-news/suncoke-air-monito....

OEPA attempting to change state rules affecting Middletown Coke's permitting process

It appears that the promise of jobs and a company’s specific circumstances seem to be dictating rule and policy at the OEPA at the expense of our children, elderly and families – not just in our community, but in the entire state of Ohio!

The Ohio EPA is in the process of changing some of their existing state rules and the changes are listed on their website in draft form. The following are three that stand out: • In rule 3745-31-01, the OEPA is redefining the contemporaneous five year period for netting purposes. • In rule 3745-31-22, the OEPA wants to give the director the discretion to issue a permit even before a company submits their pollution offsets. Middletown Coke has submitted their application for the New Source Review permit, but not given information to the OEPA on their offsets. • In rule 3745-31-33, the OEPA is changing what site preparation activities are allowed before receiving a permit to install. The fact is that the only change to the rule involves the piping and culvert allegations that SunCoke Watch reported to the EPA last September. The specific issues that we reported regarding non-compliance are the very thing that is changed in the rule. The OEPA draft rules are on their website – the link is http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/regs/regs.html. You can also get to it by going to http://www.epa.state.oh.us/, clicking on “air” at the top and then clicking on “rules and laws” on the left side. The section stating all of the draft rules, which apply to us, is 3745-31-01 through -33.

SunCoke Haverhill, Ohio issued SECOND Notice and Finding of Violation by USEPA on 4/15/09

The USEPA issued a Notice and Finding of Violation to Haverhill North Coke Company on 4/15/09. This was a second notice issued by the USEPA within a few months period of time. "HNCC exceeded its allowable rolling twelve-month bypass vent operating limit for units P901 and P902 nonrecovery coke oven batteries, resulting in 165 total rolling months of violation since the plant began operating in March 2005. According to its response to a recent USEPA information request, HNCC reported a total of 354 tons of S02 exceeding the 192 ton permit limit, and 22 tons of excess PM emissions exceeding the 10.8 ton permit limit from bypass vents in 2007, and 33 instances when more than one bypass vent was simultaneously open since 2005." (Email from Region 5 to Cindy Charles in Portsmouth, OH dated 4/16/09 obtained during a record review in Portsmouth on 4/27/09).

Syndicate content