The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

Air quality, jobs remain hot topics at SunCoke hearing

Cutting-edge command center now a dream, but EMA director will keep pushing for it
12:48 a.m.
Checkpoint tonight
12:09 a.m.
State jobless rate jumps to 10.5 percent
10:12 p.m.
Child injured in Ohio 741 accident
8:07 p.m.
Board to review superintendent applicants Saturday
5:54 p.m.
> More headlines

Robert Snook of Lemon Twp. addresses members of the Ohio EPA Wednesday, Sept. 2, during the SunCoke Energy permit hearing at Miami University Middletown.

Staff photo by Pat Auckerman Robert Snook of Lemon Twp. addresses members of the Ohio EPA Wednesday, Sept. 2, during the SunCoke Energy permit hearing at Miami University Middletown.

By Jessica Heffner, Staff Writer Updated 6:59 AM Thursday, September 3, 2009

MIDDLETOWN — More than 200 people on both sides of the fence of the proposed SunCoke Energy plant to be built in Middletown attended a public hearing to ask questions and give testimony on the draft air permit for the project.

It took nearly four hours Wednesday, Sept. 2, to delve into the dozens of questions and testimony residents submitted about the $340 million coke oven facility and its New Source Review draft permit issued by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in July. The hearing was held by the Ohio EPA at Miami University Middletown.

Lemon Twp. Trustee Robert Snook submitted 49 questions, but was only allowed 10 at the hearing by Ohio EPA officials and asked to submit the rest in writing.

It’s the second permit sought by SunCoke for the plant, which will provide coke and electricity to local AK Steel Corp. operations.

Chief among concerns was whether emissions from the plant will be a health hazard. Mike Hopkins, assistant chief of permitting for the Ohio EPA, said though emissions will be higher closer to the plant, modeling done by the agency shows maximum concentrations just outside the facility’s fence will be protective of public health.

Several residents questioned SunCoke’s safety record and ability to remain in compliance with EPA regulations, citing six notices of violation and one warning letter from the Ohio EPA, and two notices of violation from the U.S. EPA since the company’s Haverhill North Coke Company facility opened in 2005.

Hopkins described SunCoke as “not the type of company that ignores its obligations in terms of compliance” and noted that the NSR permit it is seeking for the plant is the “most stringent permit drafted for any similar facility.”

Lisa Frye, Monroe resident and president of SunCoke Watch Inc., pointed out the company is required to certify all its Ohio facilities are in compliance with their permits in order to receive the NSR. With several notices of violation seeming still to be outstanding at Haverhill, she said she is concerned the Ohio EPA has not investigated this since SunCoke certified its compliance Aug. 29.

“When I hear these things weren’t a concern to look into before a draft permit was issued, then forgive me: I don’t feel very protected by the Ohio EPA,” she said.

Questions remain for SunCoke facility

While SunCoke Energy’s air permit may one step closer to resolution after an environmental hearing, parties on both sides of the issue are no closer to agreeing what that outcome should be.

More than 200 people attended an Ohio EPA hearing on the draft New Source Review permit issued for the plant — the second permit pursued by the company after its first became the subject of several appeals and a lawsuit.

However, four hours into the event only about 60 of the original crowd remained to supply testimony to the merits or pitfalls they found with the permit and project in general.

One of the requirements of the NSR permit is SunCoke must prove it will not hinder Butler County’s ability to improve air quality, as it is already not up to federal standards for particulate matter and ozone. SunCoke has obtained emissions credits from AK Steel Corp. and Procter & Gamble Co.

Several residents said they are concerned about these credits since they are already being used by the Ohio EPA’s State Implementation Plan to get the county into attainment, which is awaiting U.S. EPA approval.

Mike Hopkins, assistant chief of permitting for the Ohio EPA, said the agency can amend that plan and will consider the credits further in its review of the permit.

Either way, Monroe resident Matt Moore said he can’t believe the Ohio EPA would allow SunCoke to build here.

“How can you allow them to pollute an already polluted area? How can you let this company come into a nonattainment area with this? It’s a joke,” Moore said.

Tommy Baker, who works for AK Steel and said his Monroe home is about one mile from the plant, emphasized the need for the permit to be issued to bring job security to AK workers and secure the 500 temporary and 75 permanent jobs promised by SunCoke.

Jobs like the 180 the Boilermakers Local 105 will get to build the boilers at the plant and maintain them once it is built, said member John McWhorter.

“(SunCoke) went out of their way to get this other permit to show they are committed to this project,” he said. “It’s about jobs.”

Hopkins said it will take at least three weeks to sift through testimony before considering whether to issue or deny SunCoke’s permit.

Residents may submit written testimony to the Ohio EPA until 5 p.m. Sept. 8 to Mike Ploetz, Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services, 250 William Howard Taft Road, First Floor, Cincinnati, OH 45219.

Contact this reporter at (513) 705-2843 or jheffner@coxohio.com.

Share this article