FRANKLIN FURNACE – Green High School cafeteria wasn’t big enough to hold the more than 600 people who gathered Tuesday for the Ohio Enivironmental Protection Agency’s hearing on a draft air permit for a proposed coke plant in the region.

Wednesday, July 19, 2000

FRANKLIN FURNACE – Green High School cafeteria wasn’t big enough to hold the more than 600 people who gathered Tuesday for the Ohio Enivironmental Protection Agency’s hearing on a draft air permit for a proposed coke plant in the region.

"We were expecting 20-40 people," said Kevin Johnson, public information officer for the Ohio EPA. "I guess a few more showed up."

The crowd of residents, businesspeople, township and county officials and chamber representatives filled the football stadium and spilled onto the grass near the field as EPA representatives explained the draft air permit for Bearcat Coke Co., Haverhill Works.

Most of those present supported the possibility of the coke plant locating in the region. Members from several local unions also appeared with signs supporting the proposed plant.

The public information session and hearing dealt with air quality issues concerning the proposed plant, a subsidiary of Sun Coke, which could locate at Gallia Pike and Ironton Avenue.

Bearcat has applied for an air permit for three, 268-oven coke battery facilities; six quenching towers; paved roads and parking areas; coal, coke and coke breeze handling operations; and storage piles, according to the EPA.

Alan Lloyd, an environmental specialist with the Ohio EPA, said the plant is being built with "maximum achievable control technology," which minimizes emissions and adheres to new, tougher federal regulations.

He added that the size of the proposed Bearcat facility is what requires it to meet the tougher federal regulations.

Sun Coke already has two plants up and running with the new technology in place – one in Indiana and one in Virginia. EPA officials visited the Indiana site to see the plant in operation, Lloyd said.

Lloyd said comments from residents collected by a court reporter at Tuesday’s hearing will be compiled and sent to Cindy Charles, a permit specialist with the Portsmouth Local Air Agency, a division of the EPA.

Ms. Charles will then review the comments and respond to any questions in writing.

After she has finished that work, Ms. Charles will make a final action recommendation, which will be sent to the Ohio EPA director, who will then review the findings. The director will then recommend whether or not the permit should be issued.

If the permit is issued, Bearcat would be allowed to begin plant construction 30 days later, Lloyd said.

In preparing the draft permit, EPA officials have done extensive modeling to see what effect the plant’s emissions would have on the air in the vicinity of the plant, said William Spires, meteorologist with the Ohio EPA’s division of air pollution control.

"We do air-modeling to see where emissions will go," Spires said.

In addition to the impact of the proposed plant’s emissions, EPA experts also looked at the emissions from other plants in the area, including Aristech and Dow, as well as other residential effects, when determining if the air in the area will meet federal and state guidelines, Spires said.

He added that with all of the contributing factors and taking into account the proposed plant’s emissions and those of other plants in the area, the air quality was maintained.

EPA officials also tested to see, if the proposed facility is built, what effect that will have on future growth in area. In other words, would the new plant’s emissions, when added to those already there because of other plants in the area, preclude further development in the area.

The only limitation will be on additions to the coke plant itself, Spires said.

"We don’t believe there is going to be restraint on future growth except at that facility," he said.

During the testing process, however, other concerns about two area plants – New Boston Coke and South Point Ethanol – were discovered, Spires said. Those problems were not connected to the construction of the proposed facility.

Ms. Charles was asked during the meeting about gases produced by the plant.

She said that the gases are combusted during the coking process.

"There is no direct flame," she said. "The gases are being combusted in the oven. There is no excess gas. It is strictly generating steam."

Questions were raised also about the coal piles that will be around the plant. Ms. Charles said the piles will be covered and the coal dust contained.

Lloyd said that after all the work has been done and the U.S. EPA has been given the opportunity to comment, the final air permit could be issued within the next six months.

There are restrictions on what work can be done until the permit has been approved, he said.

"They can break ground and do some siting, but they cannot put down anything permanent," he said.

And, after the permit is issued, if the residents have concerns about the emissions or anything else relating to air quality in the area near the plant, they can call Ms. Charles, who will investigate, Lloyd added.

The EPA will continue to take comments about the plant and residents’ questions about air quality issues through Friday.