 |
|
| Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
 |
Thursday, November 21, 2024 |
|
SunCoke Company of Middletown |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author | |||
Mike_Presta 
MUSA Council 
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 10:05am |
||
|
Vet:
I certainly remember those days. (We lived on Grand Avenue, only a few blocks from the main gate.) I distinctly remember a local politician in the late '50s standing in front of our grocery store and telling some neighbors that: "You can measure the economy of Middletown by the height of the smoke coming out of those stacks!" At that time, he was probably correct.
|
|||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
 |
|||
|
arwendt
MUSA Official 
Joined: May 17 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 588 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 10:08am |
||
|
Good points VieVet and well said as always.
|
|||
|
“Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” Benjamin Franklin - More at my Words of Freedom website.
|
|||
|
|||
|
sportsnut
MUSA Immigrant 
Joined: May 18 2007 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 11:06am |
||
|
Below you will find the reason we in Monroe are fighting this. This article is written about the famous "white glove test" plant that has the exact same permit as the one they are attempting to build here has. Yes, we realize that all jobs are at a premium. Yes, we realize how important AK is to the surrounding area. Yes, we even realize that many think we are just trying to put one over on Middletown. The reality is that SunCoke has a history of not keeping up with their pollution standards and this plant will be horrible for our small city if it is built as planned. The location is bad enough, but the pollution it will emit - while better than what Armco emitted in the 50's - is still well above what other coke plants in the state emit. Why should we settle for a subpar plant? Oh wait, maybe the leaders(?) of Middletown should be asking that question.
Oh and I believe this article is pretty pertinent to our situation here in SW Ohio. Why do you think it hasn't been in any of the local papers but the amount of money Monroe is spending to try and get a cleaner permit has? Just saying ......
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 DEC 062008 REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OFAE- 17J CERTIFIED NIALL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Wayne Pruitt General Manager Haverhill North Coke Company 2446 Gallia Pike Franklin Furnace, Ohio 45629 Re: Notice and Finding of Violation at Haverhill North Coke Company, Franklin Furnace Dear Mr. Pruitt: This is to advise you that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined that Haverhill North Coke Company's (Haverhill North Coke's) facility at 2446 Gallia Pike, Franklin Furnace, Ohio, is in violation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and associated state or local pollutioncontrol requirements. A list of the requirements violated is provided below. We are today issuing to you a Notice of Violation and Finding of Violation (NOV/FOV) for these violations. Haverhill North Coke's PSD Permit to Install (PTI) limits emissions of particulate matter PM), particulate matter 10 (PM 10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and volatile organic matter (VOM). The purpose of these emissions limits is to help protect the public from unhealthy exposures to criteria pollutants, emissions of which contribute to respiratory problems, lung damage and premature deaths.Based on Excess Emissions Report (EER) data submitted for emissions unit P901, Haverhill North Coke has violated its 3-hour rolling SO2 emission limit for six fiscal quarters since 2006. Also, for twelve quarters since the CEM was certified in 2005, Haverhill North Cokehas violated its PTI requirement to continuously operate its SO2 continuous emission monitor (CEM). Additionally, Haverhill North Coke failed to immediately report a baghouse malfunction observed by Portsmouth Local Air Agency on July 6, 2008. Violation of these requirements is also a violation of the Ohio State Implementation Plan (SIP), as ell as Title I, Part C of the CAA and its associated regulations which require compliance withthe terms and conditions of PSD permits. Accordingly, Haverhill North Coke has violated Title I of the CAA and its implementing regulations. RecycledlRecyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer) Section 113 of the CAA gives us several enforcement options to resolve these violations, including: issuing an administrative compliance order, issuing an administrative penalty order, bringing a judicial civil action, and bringing a judicial criminal action. Section 113 of the CAA provides you with the opportunity to request a conference with us about the violations alleged in the NOV/FOV. A conference should be requested within 10 days following receipt of this notice and any conference should be held within 30 days following receipt of this notice. This conference will provide you a chance to present information on the identified violations, any efforts you have taken to comply, and the steps you will take to prevent future violations. Please plan for your facility's technical and management personnel to take part in these discussions. You may have an attorney represent you at this conference. The EPA contact in this matter is Gina Harrison. You may call her at xxx-xxx-xxxx if you wish to request a conference. EPA hopes that this NOV/FOV will encourage Haverhill North Coke's compliance with the requirements of the CAA. Enclosure Sincerely, cc: John Paulian, Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Cindy Charles, Director, Air Pollution Unit Portsmouth City Health Department Air and Radiation Division United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 |
|||
|
|||
|
here&now
MUSA Resident 
Joined: Feb 27 2009 Status: Offline Points: 61 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 11:40am |
||
|
I cant see how a city that has the Larry Flint "Hustler" store and a truck stop that spews pollution all day long and has for years and years, can spend all this money on something that in the end they cant win.
I am glad i don't live in Monroe and have to watch my tax dollars go to waste. |
|||
|
|||
|
sportsnut
MUSA Immigrant
Joined: May 18 2007 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 11:53am |
||
Fair enough(even though Monroe is attempting to be progressive/aggressive in moving beyond being a truck stop dot on the map).
Does the fact that SunCoke did this ....
SunCoke seeking new permit, says new EPA filing will have tougher pledges to minimize emissions. By Jessica Heffner
Staff Writer Friday, March 13, 2009 MIDDLETOWN SunCoke Energy officials have revealed a plan to obtain a more stringent air permit, which would allow the company to circumvent the time requirements for "netting" emissions credits. Ryan Osterholm, project manager for the $340 million Middletown coke oven facility, said the company will submit a new major-source NSR permit to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, which will include tougher air quality, disbursement and monitoring requirements than its current permit. In essence, the permit will "eliminate any doubt" SunCoke is meeting its permit requirements, Osterholm said. "Even though there are additional requirements, we believe we will meet those," he said. SunCoke will submit the new permit application to the Ohio EPA within the next few weeks, he said. There have been questions about SunCoke's current permit, issued by the Ohio EPA in November, due to the agency's interpretation of air emission credits from the closing of AK Steel's sister plant in June 2003. The permit defines a window of five years for use of emission credits. The new permit would not include the time constraint, Osterholm said. Though the U.S. EPA sent a memo saying it would have no further comment on the permit or Ohio EPA's interpretation, new information submitted to the federal agency's Region 5 office caused it to reopen its review, said Bill Omohundro, spokesman for U.S. EPA. Chris Walker, an attorney retained by the city of Monroe, has submitted documents alleging that increased sulfur dioxide emissions from AK Steel's blast furnace were omitted from the netting analysis. These additional emissions would exceed the threshold allowed for the gas in the permit, according to Walker. The review has no impact on SunCoke's ability to continue construction, though Omohundro said he could not say whether there would be repercussions if U.S. EPA decided to overturn the netting ruling. ... not tell you that they are concerned with the case Monroe is making?
The most amazing thing about this entire argument - in my eyes - is that peole really don't seem to care if pollution completely fills the air as long as AK Steel is still in business.
Let's try and bring some business diversification to the area instead of being a one trick pony .....
|
|||
|
|||
|
here&now
MUSA Resident
Joined: Feb 27 2009 Status: Offline Points: 61 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 12:55pm |
||
|
Sportsnut: i do agree that we need more diversification in our town, but at this monment in time that is not an option for Middletown or Monroe for that matter. People are out of work and something has to change.....soon . The Coke plant is whats on the table NOW we can not just walk away from that.
|
|||
|
|||
|
sportsnut
MUSA Immigrant
Joined: May 18 2007 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 1:08pm |
||
|
Yes it is NOW - and I think the problem most are having with this situations is that people really believe Monroe is against the coke plant. Monroe is not. We are against the way the zoning was changed and mostly because of the way the EPA rubberstamped the approval of the emissions when there are cleaner plants elsewhere in OH. It's not a matter of stopping progress, it's a matter of progressing in a way that is good for all.
|
|||
|
|||
|
VietVet
MUSA Council
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 1:34pm |
||
|
Sportsnut- Interesting article about Haverhill- Now, what the article doesn't report is whether the violations were caused by the faulty design/malfunction of the system, the incompetence/ lack of training of the employees manning the facility, whether the employees were instructed to bypass procedures that would have prevented release of pollutants to the environment or the technology just doesn't deliver against what was promised. How does this plant's performance compare to the other SunCoke plants with this technology? May just be the Haverhill operation that is the problem child, not the technology as a whole.(Baghouse violation/failed to operate it's SO2 monitor) Those sound like operational- easy to fix items to me. If their other locations don't "over- pollute", what conclusion could you reach? We really don't know what we're going to get in Midd. and Monroe because the place hasn't been built yet and the bugs haven't been ironed out which is a common occurance in any new process startup. Wouldn't you agree that comparing Middletown to Haverhill is a bit premature since this site hasn't been built as yet, nor operational? To support the plant or to be against it's existance is premature on both sides of the fence. We simply don't know to what degree it will pollute or how competently it will operate. Another issue- does Franklin Furnace Ohio have different pollution violation criteria than Middletown Ohio? Is it more strict, magnifying the violations numbers and seriousness?
|
|||
|
|||
|
tomahawk35
MUSA Resident
Joined: Nov 18 2008 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 223 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 10:24pm |
||
|
You don't have to live in Monroe to have your tax dollars wasted, it's been happening in your own back yard without even coming close to what Monroe has been achiving.
|
|||
|
|||
|
tomahawk35
MUSA Resident
Joined: Nov 18 2008 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 223 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 13 2009 at 10:44pm |
||
|
Viet, You bring up some very good points concerning this plant which makes me wonder why the leaders of our fair city didn't take more time and do some real investigating concerning such topics instead of pulling the trigger so fast. It's this kind of quick action that would cause great concern because there were never any consideration taken on behalf of anyone who questioned this plant. It was all emergency pasting of any thing that would get this plant up and running. This is a red flag.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 14 2009 at 3:03am |
||
It's obvious that current and former Middletown City officials are in league with area business to surreptitiously load Middletown City Council (and eventually the Butler County Commission) with stooges that will be nothing more than marionettes with the businesses pulling the strings. The more that you dig, the more corruption you see, and the less you will "wonder" why strange things happen in Middletown City Hall.
|
|||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
|
|||
|
instigator
MUSA Immigrant
Joined: Dec 15 2007 Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 15 2009 at 12:47am |
||
|
VietVet you remind me of someone I just can't put my finger on it.
|
|||
|
|||
|
VietVet
MUSA Council
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 15 2009 at 10:30am |
||
|
Well instigator, I hope it's not someone running this city or in the school hierarchy. Also hope it ain't some lousy politician or uppity country clubber either. That wouldn't be a good thing. You might be looking for an anti-establishment, authority that is incompetent hatin', blunt, critical, sometimes angry, take no prisoners, sarcastic, crap stirring, honery, humor injecting, stubborn, wishing for the past, anti rose-colored glasses people, type of individual. Don't know, but right or wrong, that's how I see myself.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 15 2009 at 11:59am |
||
And those are his GOOD points!!!
 Just kidding, Vet. You're OK in my book!!!
 |
|||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
|
|||
|
VietVet
MUSA Council
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 15 2009 at 7:09pm |
||
|
Good comeback Mike!!!! I like it!!!
  At 60, there's probably no chance of me improving on those either. And, like everyone else, have the battle scars that created all of it too. 
|
|||
|
|||
|
sportsnut
MUSA Immigrant
Joined: May 18 2007 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 16 2009 at 10:41am |
||
|
Interesting point Vet. These violations could very well be caused by the folks of Haverhill being incompetent and not running the facility in the proper fashion. Who is ultimately responsible for that? The parent company that is wanting to build right here in Middletown.
The main point though is why won't the State EPA require the proposed plant coming to Middletown to fall under the same strict restrictions as the new FDS Project plant in Toledo, OH? If the leadership of Middletown had done any research, they would have found this cleaner method of making Coke and pushed SunCoke to do the same. Unfortunately it was pushed through without anyone questioning if there is a better way. And there is a better way.
I still don't understand why Monroe is the bad guy in pushing for this plant to be the cleanest it can possibly be. I would think most of you that see your City Government's mode of operation would appreciate seeing a City Government actually taking the time to speak to the people, do some research, and not just bow down to certain folks with a private agenda.
Good to see the Journal finally report on the Haverhill issues.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 16 2009 at 1:12pm |
||
Those on council know next to nothing about the subject, but most have egos too large to admit that. They are also too proud to think that anyone else may know more than they do on the subject so they will not ask anyone who is competent. (Just like with any other subject.) They could read an article or two (I'd recommend the chapters on coke-making and coke ovens in 'The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel". by U. S. Steel Corp.) but all that would do is give a very basic overview and teach them a few "buzz words". They then would be in a situation where "a little knowledge was a dangerous thing", since, as usual, they would try to act like experts, but would be easily fooled.
|
|||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
|
|||
|
sportsnut
MUSA Immigrant
Joined: May 18 2007 Status: Offline Points: 36 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 16 2009 at 5:20pm |
||
So, are you saying this is what Monroe's council did, or what Middletown's would do?
I don't always agree with what Monroe's council has done in the past, and fortunately they have allowed me to voice that to them while still respecting each other's view point. I don't see them as these arrogant aristocrats like some elected officials.
The Monroe City Council did pay 2 (or maybe 3 - not sure) consultants with years and years of experience in the steel making process and on the environmental damage that may be caused by this plant. This time(which isn't always the case), homework was done and the proper action(IMO) has been taken.
After moving out of Middletown to Monroe 3 years ago, it is refreshing to be able to say I am proud of how my elected officials have acted.
Why don't we all take a stance on having the cleanest coke plant available built as opposed to allowing a plant with the minimum EPA specifications? I think that would be a great compromise for our two cities.
Or better yet, have the cleanest coke plant available built inside the AK fence. I know - that is asking too much. LOL
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 17 2009 at 5:52am |
||
(By the way, just to be perfectly clear, I also am NOT in favor of dirty water, wife-beating, child abuse, nuclear war, cruelty to animals, global warming, or any of the other tripe that people who try to imply that there are perfectly normal Amercans advocating dirty air are in favor of. That being said, if you would like to have a reasonable discussion, that's fine. I would be pleased to do so. If you insist on maniacal accusations, find an equal with whom to argue.)
I have no idea of your background, sir. But perhaps you should read the ENTIRE book that I recommended (The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel), and then analyze the global steel situation as it was when SunCoke and AK first conceived this project, and then review the tapes of Mr. Snook's presentation at the Public Hearing. Please recall that Mr. Snook made a good case that this "did not make sense"! Well, given the world economy, and steel supply and demand at the time of conception of this project, I believe that Mr. Snook was correct!!! UNLESS...unless AK felt, as most analysts did at that time, that the global market for certain grades of steel would continue to exceed forseeable supply, thus creating an excellent opportunity for a domestic supplier such as AK to strategically add capacity, such as EA furnaces and thin slab casters, which coupled with an economical, captive electrical power source (as this co-gen cokemaking facility is) would have perfectly situated them to take full advantage of the situation.
The entire situation is much too esoteric and too complicated for Middletown's Council to fully grasp. I have not, and will not try to speak fpr Monroe's Council, nor for their citizens.
I was quite impressed with Mr. Snook's presentation. I actually thought that he was going to reach the same conclusion that I did, but he stopped short. His facts and logic were better arguements for Monroe's side than all of the other hystrionics, emotions, and blatherings about Middletonians wanting dirty air put together.
|
|||
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|||
|
|||
Topic Options
here&now wrote:|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.133 seconds.
| Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |