To date, Monroe has reportedly spent $473,366.13 fighting the plant, with actions including an appeal of SunCoke’s first permit to ERAC, which is pending, and a Clean Air Act lawsuit, which was dismissed.
Jobs in jeopardy
Since the Ohio EPA said this is the most stringent permit it has ever issued, Monroe’s argument against the plant “is the biggest mystery,” and this latest move is “depressing,” since it may well put the project in jeopardy again, said Gary Corbin, Butler County Building and Construction Trades Council executive secretary and treasurer. Members of the trades council would fill the 500 temporary jobs the company would hire to build the plant.
“I find it hard to believe that they are going to come in there and spend another several thousand dollars to fight this thing when they can’t really have the money,” Corbin said.
About 100 members of the trades council are Monroe residents, and Corbin said “a good deal of them would be working at that job.”
Because AK Steel Corp. has already contracted to buy all of the coke and energy that would be produced by the SunCoke plant for the next 20 years, the success of the project and the 75 permanent jobs it promises wouldn’t be dependent on the state of the economy, Corbin said.
“The sooner they get this thing up and running, the sooner they are going to make money,” he said. “It has got to be frustrating for SunCoke and all of them down there that they have already lost two years of production.”
SunCoke officials did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday.
Frustration for AK, Middletown
AK Steel has maintained its need for the coke and energy the plant would produce for its operations, despite having an additional 12-year contract for 550,000 tons of coke produced at SunCoke’s Haverhill North Coke Company facility in Franklin Furnace, Ohio.
“I think it is unfortunate that (Monroe) would take this action, which potentially will affect a number of people who could be working in construction to build this plant as we speak, not to mention the need for AK Steel for coke and electricity,” said Alan McCoy, spokesman for the company.
While AK was operating at about 50 percent capacity last year due to economic conditions, McCoy said the company is slowing ramping up from that point and has been hiring at its Middletown Works plant.
“Hopefully it is fairly clear that we need an additional supply of cost-effective raw materials such as coke in the near future and long future,” he said.
Middletown Mayor Larry Mulligan said he finds Monroe’s ongoing scrutiny of the plant “a little disappointing given the state of the economy.”
Mulligan said, “I think the EPA has already ruled twice by issuing two separate permits that SunCoke is committed to the best available technology and stringent emissions requirements.”
Mulligan referred to the facility as a great development for the region and state, underscoring Gov. Ted Strickland’s comments in favor of the development when the recent permit approval was announced.
“The amount of attention it received helps highlight how important this project is,” Mulligan said.
Other opponents plot next move
Lisa Frye, a Monroe resident and president of SunCoke Watch Inc., a citizens group against the plant that also filed an appeal against the netting permit, said she was unaware Monroe was filing an appeal. She is still considering her group’s legal options.
“Obviously, our position is we want them to move forward in any format they are able to move forward with legally on the new permit,” she said of the Monroe council.
Robert Snook, a Lemon Twp. trustee who also appealed the original SunCoke permit, said he has concerns about the newly issued NSR permit and is considering filing his own appeal. He does not believe the offset emissions credits SunCoke received from Procter & Gamble Co. are valid, nor that the company is using the best available technology at the plant it plans to build.
Snook also said the permit and technology planned for the FDS Coke plant to be built in Toledo should be applied to the Middletown plant. The FDS plant has been the subject of opposition since it was first announced in 2004 and has yet to be built. Despite this, Snook said he would support the SunCoke project if it was being built to FDS specifications.
“The FDS plant is far more restrictive than the Middletown coke permit. The state of Ohio forced FDS into that technology to get its permit in January 2008 and they started out with the same restrictions as the Middletown Coke Company, so I don’t see any difference,” he said.
Heather Lauer, spokeswoman for the Ohio EPA, said she believes the SunCoke permit is more restrictive than the one issued for FDS.
Staff
W
riter Ryan Gauthier contributed to this report.
About the Author