SunCoke Watch and City of Monroe file Appeals in Franklin County Court of Appeals following ERAC's Denial of the City of Monroe's Motion for Clarification

Attached are four documents for your review: Monroe's Motion for Clarification, SunCoke, AK Steel and the OEPA’s Joint Response to Monroe’s Motion for Clarification, SunCoke Watch, Inc.’s memo of support and Monroe’s subsequent response.

To summarize, Monroe asked the Environmental Appeals Commission to state that the netting permit (1st permit) is truly moot and would be unable to be resurrected if/when the New Source Review permit is overturned. The Commission stated it was void, but didn’t speak to what would happen in that instance.

ERAC has denied the City of Monroe's clarification request, which has resulted in SunCoke Watch and the City of Monroe filing separate appeals with the Franklin County Court of Appeals. Appealing to the court was necessary in order to ensure that justice is served and that our ability to challenge the first netting permit still exists if our opponents ever attempted to fall back on that permit with a defeat of the NSR permit in court. As it stands now, our appeals have been dismissed, but ERAC has been unwilling to state that the first netting permit is permanently void/moot regardless of what happens with the NSR permit. Initially we were encouraged by ERAC’s willingness to define supersede as void, but after further legal evaluation the definition wasn’t taken far enough for our legal comfort.

If our opponents would ever choose to resurrect the first netting permit and our appeals were not in existence for our “day in court,” then SunCoke could potentially be allowed to construct and function under that first permit without any legal challenge in a court of law due to ERAC's decision rendered without addressing what would happen in this instance.

The attachments are self explanatory.

I went back and found this quote from SunCoke:

“As we’ve said all along, we are pursuing the New Source Review permit to eliminate any doubt about the project’s environmental permitting. We are committed to operating all of our facilities in a safe, reliable and environmentally sound manner,” said Thomas Golembeski, spokesman for SunCoke.” July 29, 2009 Middletown Journal

If SunCoke is so committed to the above and is so confident of the legal stability of their New Source Review permit, why are they so unwilling to bring closure to the first permit?

Motion for Clarification.pdf678.38 KB
SunCoke Watch MEMO expedited clarification mootness.doc36 KB
Joint Response of Appellees Middletown Coke Company Suncoke Energy Inc AK Steel Corporation and the Director of Environmental Protection.pdf264.75 KB
Monroe's Motion for Clarification Response.pdf242.5 KB