OxfordPress.com

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.

Alleged violations

According to the facility's permit, the plant has a three-hour emissions limit for sulfur dioxide. However, in at least six quarters dating back to 2006, the company's own monitoring system reports show P901 exceeded that, at one point emitting as much as 25 percent above permit limitations, said Bill MacDowell, air enforcement section chief for the U.S. EPA's Region 5 office.

The company also received a notice for not immediately reporting the malfunctions of its coke screening baghouse and baghouse atomizer.

The facility's baghouse — a filter that sucks air through causing particulates to be caught on the bag — was malfunctioning in July 2008. The atomizer — which sprays a lime mixture mist to react with sulfur to prevent sulfur dioxide releases — was malfunctioning in February 2008, MacDowell said.

Mike White, vice president of operations for SunCoke, said the malfunctions, which are allowed for by the U.S. EPA, may have contributed to the excess emissions. In a company investigation, it was found the baghouse malfunction was not properly reported by the plant manager, and resulted in his termination, he said.

The atomizer malfunction, which occurred before White moved from a position at Sunoco to SunCoke, "was reported but there was a misunderstanding," he said.

SunCoke's permit requires it to run a continuous emission monitor system to track sulfur dioxide emissions. According to company reports submitted to the EPA's regional agent, Portsmouth Local Air Agency, the monitors were sometimes off, in one quarter almost 18 percent of the time.

White said their permit allows for a period of shutdown and malfunctions and believes the alleged violations would be covered under that category.

"The reason I was brought up (from Sunoco Chemical to SunCoke) is because our company is very dependent on very safe and reliable operations," White said. "We treat these matters very, very seriously and we are going to do everything in our power to rectify this matter."

The outcome of these alleged violations is yet to be determined, MacDowell said. If the violations are verifiable and SunCoke is back in compliance, it could be penalized. If the penalty is high or the facility is still not in compliance, the case could be forwarded to the U.S. Department of Justice.

MacDowell said he could not speculate on why SunCoke may have been in violation, but said if the facility was operating properly, it is able to achieve emissions requirements.

"That is what is required and that is what we expect from the company," he said. "The monitors allow the company to tell everyday if it is meeting standards."

Main stack collapse

In the midst of the U.S. EPA's investigation and request for more information from SunCoke regarding the alleged violations, the main stack of the Haverhill P901 plant collapsed.

No one was injured, and while the company vented its emissions through its unfiltered bypass vents for a time, SunCoke spokesman Thomas Golembeski said SunCoke believes "there was no risk to human health in the surrounding community as a result of the emissions."

The environmental control system is back online and filtering emissions, he said.

About 120 feet of the 200-foot stack collapsed as a result of corrosion, White said. The stack was made of stainless steel, different from stacks at other SunCoke facilities, which are made out of a carbon steel.

The company said this is "an isolated incident" and estimates it will cost $2 million to replace. It is researching a metallurgy for replacement. The new design will be used at the Middletown plant, White said.

New concerns

Lisa Frye, president of SunCoke Watch Inc., said in light of her concerns over the Middletown Air Permit, which she maintains is in violation of the Clean Air Act, the Haverhill violations show "there is virtually no control day to day over what a facility like this does."

Chris Walker, counsel for the city on Monroe, which has filed a Clean Air suit fighting the SunCoke permit, said emissions from the Middletown facility will cause health problems even if it complies with its current air permit 100 percent of the time.

"In light of U.S. EPA's notice of violation concerning Haverhill North, Monroe has further reason to be concerned that SunCoke will not employ adequate pollution control equipment or operational practices at Middletown Coke," he said.

While the EPA seems to be taking the Haverhill violations seriously, Marilyn Wall of Sierra Club said she is concerned the Middletown plant would have the same issues since it would be using the same technology.

But violations are not uncommon in coke, steel and even city operations, said Alan McCoy, spokesman for AK Steel, which is partnering with SunCoke on the local plant project.

"Even the most perfect machine is made by an imperfect human and to expect anything to work to perfection is unrealistic," he said.

Opponents to the project have long argued the motto that the plant should be moved "Behind the Fence" onto AK's property. There, about 1,000 yards from the current site, AK has been making coke since 1953, McCoy said, at a plant that uses not as clean technology as SunCoke and has also received EPA notices of violation.

But Frye said she is more interested in her new "Follow the Law" motto now.

"If SunCoke announced today that they would move it inside the fence on AK's property, they'd still be breaking the law with the illegal use of netting," she said. "The proposed location is wrong, period, in the middle of a school, nursing home and residential area."

And while violations may not be uncommon, Wall said "they need to fix the problems. It's not an excuse to say that someone else has done it, too."

Share your comments