“The bottom line is this new permit supersedes the previous so the first is no longer a valid permit,” said Mike Hopkins, assistant chief of permitting for the Ohio EPA.
But Lisa Frye, president of SunCoke Watch Inc., which appealed the netting permit to the Environmental Review Appeals Commission, said she still has concerns since the Ohio EPA has not revoked the first permit.
“You wonder what their definition of superseding is,” Frye said. “Because we are in such uncharted waters right now, we are all just trying to see how this plays out.”
It is rare for a company to seek a second permit when it already has a valid one in hand, but that mostly centers extensive costs associated with completing required engineering for an application, which range in the “thousands of dollars,” said Heather Lauer, spokeswoman for the Ohio EPA.
In the thousands of permits the agency processes, it is uncommon, but not unheard of, to have two permits for the same project, Hopkins said.
And if the NSR permit was appealed and some flaw made it invalid, SunCoke would not be able to fall back on the netting permit since the Ohio EPA considers it invalid, Hopkins said.
Parties still have 30 days to file an appeal. To date, ERAC has reported no such filings.
Monroe City Council on Wednesday night met in executive session with its attorney, Chris Walker, who is representing them in litigation it has pursued over the project. However, Law Director K. Philip Callahan said the city is still reviewing the latest permit and that it planned to take no immediate action.
SunCoke defends safety of its Middletown plant
As the second coke plant of its kind, Middletown may be at an advantage as SunCoke Energy has had time to work out its operation kinks.
Critics of the $360 million coke oven plant that promises to bring 500 temporary and 75 permanent jobs to the area have long cited the ongoing notices of violations the company’s Haverhill North Coke Company facility in Franklin Furnace, Ohio, as an issue of ongoing concern.
The plant’s operations are reported to be similar to the proposed Middletown plant, which could begin construction in the next few months after receiving its New Source Review air permit from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Most recently, the facility received a notice of violation Dec. 11 from the Portsmouth Local Air Agency, the monitoring agent for the Ohio EPA, because its bypass stack emissions exceeded its permit limitations.
SunCoke spokeswoman Carol Sloan said the company is working with the Ohio EPA on its issues at Haverhill.
“SunCoke is committed to the safe, reliable and environmentally sound operation of its facilities. That is our main focus and a responsibility we take very seriously,” she said.
She also said the Middletown plant, while similar, includes many “design-related improvements” that will be included in the construction plans.
“In addition, we will be enhancing and standardizing process safety procedures,” Sloan said.
Mike Hopkins, assistant chief of permitting for the Ohio EPA, said as with any permit, the agency has tried to ensure proper monitoring and record requirements are in place to ensure emissions rules are met.
SunCoke’s NSR permit requires the purchase of an extensive network of air monitors to be placed throughout Butler County to capture emissions data. In what Ohio EPA Director Chris Korleski said is the most monitors he has ever seen required in his 30-year career, SunCoke will be required to purchase two particulate PM 10 monitors, four PM 2.5 monitors, one sulfur dioxide monitor and two Volatile Organic Compound monitors.
Hopkins also said he believes the Middletown plant will have the advantage of the company learning from the issues it has had at Haverhill.
“I think the biggest different between the two facilities is the Haverhill facility is the first of its kind that used this equipment and heat recovering. They have definitely had some problems with the operation of that equipment and they have learned from those experiences and we would think they would not have that same level of problems at this new facility because of what they have learned,” he said.
But Lisa Frye, president of SunCoke Watch Inc., a citizens group that has been in opposition to the local plant, said that “saying this is going to be different, that doesn’t give me any sense of confidence.
“I’m not just a disgruntled neighbor. I appreciate the need for jobs, but I will never accept that it is morally OK to skirt the law in order to provide jobs,” she said.
Contact this reporter at (513) 705-2843 or jheffner@coxohio.com.
About the Author