EPA critical of SunCoke
Critics of local facility fear similar emission issues
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Extras
Photos
HAVERHILL, Ohio — While SunCoke Energy has been touting itself as committed to "environmentally sound operations," a recent notice of emissions and operating violations at the company's Haverhill coking facility have raised some doubts among critics.
Based on Excess Emissions Reports, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the facility's P901 plant, which is very similar to the one being built off Yankee Road in Middletown, violated its emission limits for sulfur dioxide, continuous monitoring requirements, and requirements to immediately report malfunctions.
On Feb. 11, in the midst of the U.S. EPA's investigation and subsequent request for more information from SunCoke, the main stack on its P901 plant collapsed due to corrosion.
The incident has necessitated the use of the facility's bypass vents, which resulted in unfiltered pollutants being released into the environment for about a week before the control system was brought back online, said Bill MacDowell, air enforcement section chief for the U.S. EPA's Region 5 office.
Mike White, vice president of operations for Tennesse-based SunCoke, cited a baghouse malfunction as a possible cause for at least some of the excess emissions, but said neither the malfunction nor the downtime of the company's continuous monitoring system threatened the environment.
"The SO2 emissions were never shown to be over the national ambient air quality standards," he said.
SunCoke is working with the EPA to comply with investigation requests, White said, and has been taking steps to rectify any issues, including redesigning its main stack.
But to Lisa Frye, president of SunCoke Watch Inc. which opposes the construction of the local facility, it just confirms the position she has taken over the last year.
"SunCoke obviously can't be trusted to do only what they are permitted to do," she said. "We already had concerns about the tons of pollutants they were permitted to emit. This goes above and beyond that."

The Haverhill North Coke Facility owned by SunCoke Energy violated emissions limits, continuous monitoring requirements and a requirement to immediately report malfunctions, according to the U.S. EPA. The facility in Scioto County is similar to the one the company has started work on in Butler County.
Comments
By Peadesetedome
August 8, 2010 10:16 AM | Link to this
what I was looking for, thanks
By w
July 5, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this
other than basement boy, i would guess that most all posters are currently employed and don’t care about jobs for the blue collar people that should be able to survive on minimum wages
By Fioricet
June 29, 2009 6:32 AM | Link to this
This combination drug product is intended as a treatment for tension headache.
It consists of a fixed combination of butalbital, acetaminophen, and caffeine. The role each component plays in the relief of the complex of symptoms known as tension headache is incompletely understood.
By SillyMe
March 16, 2009 5:52 PM | Link to this
Do you feel better now Hornet? Do you somehow feel like a man again? The saying goes lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. What have you done Mr pot stirrer?
Just what I thought…..nothing.
By Keith
March 16, 2009 6:46 AM | Link to this
Thanks to the council of Middletown are lungs might fail just like the stack did. I dont understand where are school board stood on the issue?Guess they care about as much as are council people.
By fedup
March 16, 2009 6:41 AM | Link to this
AK has made middletown a waste land!!!! MUST PUT A STOP TO THIS COKE PLANT!!!!
By tim puckett
March 16, 2009 4:49 AM | Link to this
I work at ak for a contractor i screen coke lets get this plant built so i can get a better paying job suncoke send me an aplication email quartertim@yahoo.com
By BASEMENT BOY
March 16, 2009 12:30 AM | Link to this
I’m the boy who lives in mommy and daddy’s basement. I’m 25 years old and have nothing else to do but fight this coke plant. I hope to someday move out of the basement but then I will have to pay bills.
By hornet
March 15, 2009 10:07 PM | Link to this
I wish they would either build it or not build it, so the poor people of Monroe could go on to next subject to cry over….schools, empty strip malls, ugly 75 exit, or the 63 extension. The young kid, who lives in the basement and has no grammar skills, will have to one day find a new cause to fight for.
By Jim P
March 15, 2009 7:02 PM | Link to this
Why do you think AK does not want to build on their land? They can not control Prices nor our they responsable for all the pollution from this coke plant. Also why do you think that big brother wants E CHECK back in Butler County, to slide the pollution problems away from the new coke plant. Go to Overpeck and see what a coke plant did to them for years. Monroe is doing the right thing fighting this plant, everyone should help out for health reasons.
By unemployed construction worker
March 15, 2009 6:29 PM | Link to this
You want it on AK property? Keep in mind AK owns land just east of the tracks on toadhunter. I say we put it there and put people to work.
By pk
March 15, 2009 5:37 PM | Link to this
We were told at one of the EPA meetings that the violations or emissions from an identical plant has no bearing on the permit being issured for the new plant. The location and what is near the facility is also NOT taken into consideration-for example the elementary school & retirement home.
By SillyMe
March 15, 2009 4:56 PM | Link to this
I think the EPA really need to look into this before they let them build one of these things around here.
By middsteve
March 15, 2009 1:32 PM | Link to this
the emissions ate thru a stainless steel stack WOW!what chance does a lung have.whats wrong with inside the fence where everything is already filthy and polluted ? why tear up pristine farm land? makes no sense to anyone but the money grubbers and the puppet alan mccoy (hes paid to say whatever they tell him to)P.S. im a 33 yr ARMCO vet.