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

ANOTHER Notice of Violation issued to SunCoke on 2/17/10

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.

Kelly Graff files lawsuit against Haverhill North Coke Company/SunCoke Energy

Kelly Graff is one of the women who came to the Middletown City Council meetings and spoke regarding the issues in Haverhill which, as we all know, were subsequently ignored by those Council members.

She, along with some other family members, have now filed a lawsuit against SunCoke. She lives across a divided highway from the Haverhill coking facility. She actually lives farther than some supporters in our SunCoke Watch Inc. group would live from the Middletown Coke Company proposed site.

This lawsuit addresses many issues including the Violations and the health effects from the pollutants from this SunCoke facility - the model for the Middletown Coke Company facility.

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)

"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.


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).

First Notice of Violation by USEPA to SunCoke Haverhill: Coke plant foes cite Haverhill emissions

Oxford Press, Sunday, March 15, 2009

Alleged emissions violations at SunCoke Energy's Haverhill, Ohio, facility have cast a shadow of doubt for some over the company's capability to operate responsibly at their new Middletown plant currently under construction.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sent a notice of violation to SunCoke for allegedly emitting excess sulfur dioxide from its P901 Haverhill plant. The facility is similar to the one to open in Butler County.

Read More: http://www.oxfordpress.com/n/content/oh/story/news/business/2009/03/15/m...

Haverhill Coke Plant Complaint Investigations

May 2, 2008
To: Middletown City Council
From: Robert Snook

This is a summary of some of the 20 complaints that have been filed by nearby residents.
In addition the Haverhill Coke Plant has reported 46 violations from June 15, 2005 to
March 28, 2008.
1. Complaint No. 2005-20: Mitchell Wheeler said the 3 stacks closest US 52 had 20-30
ft. flames. He said when he walked outside his eyes were burning. There was black
smoke at the top of the flame, trailing off. He said they have a pressure problem and

Syndicate content