|
0001 1
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY 2
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING 3
AIR PERMIT TO INSTALL FOR 4
FDS COKING 5
6
- - - 7
8
Transcript of the Public Hearing taken in
9 the above-captioned
matter, conducted by Hearing 10 Officer
Mary McCarron, taken before Nicole D. 11 Blaker,
Registered Merit Reporter and Notary 12 Public
in and for the State of Ohio, at the Oregon
13 City
Hall, Seaman Road, Oregon, Ohio, on Thursday,
14 May 13,
2004, commencing at 8:32 p.m. 15
- - -
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0002 1 OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mary McCarron 2 Public Interest
Center
P.O. Box 1049 3 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 (614)
644-2160 4
- - - 5
MS. MCCARRON:
The purpose of this public 6
hearing is to accept comments on the official
7
record regarding a permit to install four coke
8
batteries at the proposed FDS Coking plant in
9
Oregon, Lucas County.
If approved, the permit 10
would allow the installation of four coke
11
batteries consisting of 240 coke ovens that would
12
produce 1.44 million tons of coke. The permit
13
would regulate the following pollutants: Carbon
14
monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, volatile
15
organic compounds, particulate matter, hazardous
16
air pollutants, and lead.
17
Ohio EPA published a public notice to
18
announce the hearing and public comment period
19
regarding the expansion -- or the permit
20
application in newspapers in the area. This
21
notice was issued in Ohio EPA's Weekly Review,
22
which is a publication that lists, by county, all
23
agency activities and actions taking place in the
24
State of Ohio.
25
Written
and oral comments received as part 0003 1
of the official record are reviewed by Ohio EPA
2
prior to a final action of the director. To be
3
included in the official record written comments
4
must be received by Ohio EPA by the close of
5
business on May 24th, 2004. Comments received
6
after this date may be considered as time and
7
circumstances permit but will not be part of the
8
official record for this hearing.
9
Written comments can be filed with me
10
tonight or submitted to Matt Stanfield, Toledo
11
Division of Environmental Services, 348 South Erie
12
Street, Toledo, Ohio, 43602, and this address can
13
be found on your agenda for this evening.
14
It is important for you to know that all
15
comments received in writing at the agency, all
16
written comments given to me tonight, and all
17
verbal comments given here tonight are given the
18
same consideration.
I ask that all exhibits, 19
including written speeches, maps, photographs,
20
overheads, and any other physical evidence
21
referred to in your testimony be submitted to me
22
tonight as part of the official record. If you
23
choose not to submit the information, Ohio EPA
24
cannot ensure the accuracy of your testimony. A
25
court reporter is here to make a stenographic
0004 1
record of tonight's proceedings.
2
Questions and comments made at the public
3
hearing will be responded to in a document known
4
as a responsiveness summary. The director, after
5
taking into consideration the recommendations of
6
the program staff and comments presented by the
7
public, may issue or deny the permit. Once a
8
final decision is made by the director, the final
9
permit decision, along with the responsiveness
10
summary, will be communicated to the applicant,
11
all persons who have submitted comments, and all
12
persons who present testimony at tonight's
13
hearing.
14
Final actions of the director are
15
appealable to the Environmental Review Appeals
16
Commission or ERAC.
This board is separate from 17
the Ohio EPA and reviews cases in accordance with
18
Ohio's environmental laws and rules. Any ERAC
19
decision is appealable to the Franklin County
20
Court of Appeals.
Any Court of Appeals order is 21
appealable to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
22
If you wish to present testimony at this
23
hearing tonight and have not already completed a
24
blue card, please do so at this time and return it
25
to me or another Ohio EPA representative, and the
0005 1
cards are available at the registration table.
2
Each individual may testify only once, so
3
I ask that you use your time wisely and that you
4
are respectful of others providing their comments
5
and questions.
There is no cross examination of
6
the speaker or Ohio EPA representatives in public
7
hearings of this type.
Ohio EPA's public hearings 8
afford citizens an opportunity to provide input.
9
Therefore, we will not be able to answer questions
10
during this hearing.
The hearing officer or an 11
Ohio EPA representative may ask clarifying
12
questions of speakers to ensure the record is as
13
complete and accurate as possible. If you have a
14
question, please phrase your comments in the form
15
of a question and the agency will address your
16
concerns in writing within the responsiveness
17
summary.
18
Out of courtesy for elected officials here
19
tonight, I request that they make themselves known
20
to me at this time, which I believe I have a
21
number of cards from elected officials, and I will
22
give them the chance to testify first.
23
We will now be receiving testimony. The
24
first card
I have received is Mayor Brown. 25
MAYOR BROWN: Thank
you. First of all, I
have 0006 1
a letter from Commissioner Thurber that she wishes
2
to be read into the record.
3
Please accept this letter in lieu of my
4
appearance at this hearing. I would like to voice
5
my personal support of the U.S. Coking Group's
6
plant being proposed in Lucas County.
7
This project is not only a tremendous
8
economic benefit for Lucas County but for the
9
entire United States.
A new coke plant will be an 10
important step in making the U.S. less dependent
11
on foreign coke.
Currently the U.S. imports a 12
significant portion of coke for steel production.
13
However, throughout the world coke is scarce and
14
is considered a strategic commodity to any economy
15
that includes an industrial manufacturing base.
16
This project is not destroying a
17
greenfield piece of property such as a farm field
18
or wooded land.
This plant will take full 19
advantage of an underutilized brownfield site. In
20
addition, Lucas County is one of the few places on
21
the Great Lakes that offer the infrastructure
22
needed for this project. The site is ideally
23
suited for this type of facility because we offer
24
rail access, seaport access, freeway access,
25
proximity
to markets, infrastructure, parcel size,
0007 1
zoning, water, and, most importantly, a skilled
2
and dedicated workforce.
3
Not only will the project create between
4
150 to 200 permanent jobs, but the approximate 350
5
million dollar investment will also create about
6
1,000 badly needed construction jobs for the
7
various skilled trades of our area.
8
The Ohio EPA recently reviewed and issued
9
a draft approval for the coke plant's air permit
10
to install, meaning that the emissions controls
11
from the plant will meet the Clean Air Act
12
regulations.
This plant will use the most 13
innovative and environmentally sound technology
14
available, including the best available controls
15
technology to minimize air emissions.
16
I have confidence, after reviewing the
17
proposal for the plant, that the proper
18
environmental concerns are being addressed in the
19
plant design, the equipment specifications,
20
specifically, flat push technology, and in the
21
operation, once the plant is built. I urge the
22
approval of the permit to install. And I will
23
give you this when I give you mine.
24
After many months -- this is mine, okay.
25
After many months of talking with representatives
0008 1
of the U.S. Coking Group, I feel very confident in
2
their ability to meet the standards outlined in
3
the air permit to install and that they will be
4
very good corporate neighbors. I understand that
5
they will use state of the art technology that
6
will be very clean and efficient.
7
To gain a level of comfort to what a plant
8
like this would mean to our community, I called
9
the environmental manager of another coking plant
10
operating in the United States. I did this
11
yesterday. What
I found was that today's plants 12
operate with many complex environmental controls,
13
unlike the plants of yesterday, and those of us
14
who are from Toledo realize and remember those
15
plants. I was
extremely pleased with their strong 16
environmental controls and community perception.
17
They are considered very good neighbors.
18
I am confident in the USEPA, the Ohio EPA,
19
and the Toledo Division of Environmental Services'
20
ability to complete a thorough review of this
21
permit to ensure to the citizens of Oregon that
22
the plant design and the operations will meet the
23
Clean Air Act requirements.
24
If this plant doesn't build here, they'll
25
go someplace else.
We need the jobs.
0009 1
(Reaction from the Audience.) 2
MS. MCCARRON:
Please be respectful to 3
people providing testimony and keep your comments
4
quiet. 5
MAYOR BROWN:
We need the tax base, we 6
need the boost to our economy, and we need to
7
encourage businesses committed to coming here to
8
meet all environmental standards. Thank you.
9
MS. MCCARRON:
I am sure Mayor Brown 10
appreciates your applause, but if we could please
11
not applaud after every speaker or we will be here
12
very
long. One thing that I
forgot to mention 13
before we got started is that when you come up to
14
the microphone, if you would please state your
15
name, spell it for the record, and state where you
16
are from, and that's it. We are going to provide
17
five minutes per person for their speeches.
18
The next public official wishing to
19
testify this evening is Tina Skeldon
Wozniak. 20
MS. WOZNIAK:
Good evening.
Tina Wozniak, 21
W-o-z-n-i-a-k, Lucas County Commissioner. I
22
support this permit.
We need two things in our 23
community. We
need jobs. We need them
badly.
24
This is a good investment. It is an investment in
25
a product that is in constant demand. This
0010 1
product, these jobs are less subject to the whims
2
of a difficult economy.
3
The second part is we need a strong
4
economy, and although legitimate environmental
5
concerns are being discussed, I reject those who
6
say that we have to choose between jobs and a good
7
environment. I
refuse to accept that because I 8
want both. Our
community needs jobs, good jobs, 9
good paying jobs, and a good environment and a
10
clean environment.
11
I challenge this plant to use the most up
12
to date technology to ensure that they meet all
13
environmental standards for safety, both for the
14
residents and for the workers. If they do that,
15
and that's what they say they will do, their plant
16
will be just as good for the economy as our
17
health. Again, I
support this permit. 18
MS. MCCARRON:
Thank you.
Again, if you 19
could please hold your applause. Mayor Jack Ford.
20
MAYOR FORD:
Madam Chair, thank you for 21
this courtesy of being able to speak. A recent
22 news
report indicated that the proposed plant had
23
raised some flags regarding possible dangers.
24
When I read that early one morning, I was deeply
25
concerned about the tone of the news report. We
0011 1
convened a group at city hall in Toledo and asked
2
that there be a thorough review, literally a
3
de novo approach to it.
4
After going through that process, I was
5
informed and I believe that there were some errors
6
or exaggerations in the description. In fact,
7
there will not be 680 pounds of mercury emitted
8
each year from the plant, and secondly, on that
9
issue, the report did not take into account
10
technology that will be in place that would reduce
11
whatever emission occurs by 90 percent, and so it
12
is just not accurate.
There was some comment with 13
respect to this new plant would emit more mercury
14
than the Bayshore plant. Again, in looking at the
15
technology, again, in fact, it would be far less.
16
The article also assumed that all coal is
17
to be combusted in the coke plant when, in fact,
18
it will be cooked.
Now, when I was told this, I 19
didn't know what the hell that meant. I asked for
20
that to be explained further to me. As I
21
understand it, cooking coal does not drive off all
22
the mercury as does combusting it.
23
Only after strong internal review did my
24
comfort level reach the point that it's at today
25
where I could say I support this. There's been a
0012 1
lot of good arguments made about the jobs.
2
Commissioner Thurber I think was very accurate to
3
point out it is a national security argument that
4
is also embedded in the possibility of this plant,
5
but the health concern was the threshold issue for
6 me, and had I
thought or was convinced that there 7
was the risk that was originally described, I
8
would not be here today in support, but I'm
9
convinced otherwise, and I support it. Thank you.
10
I'm sorry, I'm Jack Ford, Mayor, F-o-r-d.
11
MS. MCCARRON:
Thank you. James
Seaman. 12
MR. SEAMAN:
James Seaman, Oregon, Ohio, 13
Oregon city councilman, S-e-a-m-a-n. I would just
14
like to say to everyone and to the Ohio EPA that,
15
you know, Oregon has a strong track record of
16
caring about their environment. We've put in
17
millions of dollars in the sanitary sewers
18
recently. We've
improved our wastewater treatment 19
plant when we had an EPA difficulty with the flow
20
equalization project.
We spent over five million 21
to six million dollars for that project, which is
22
a lot of money for a city the size of Oregon, so
23
it shows we care
about our environment.
24
We spent over ten million dollars out of
25
the -- out of local Oregon money over the last
0013 1
five years to expand our water treatment plant
2
from eight million to sixteen million gallons
3
production per day.
The total project is twenty 4
million, and we're taking a loan of from nine to
5
ten million dollars over this five-year period of
6 time, so we're working hard to do |