Published: May 21, 2006 10:35 pm            

Coke-project plans remain tied up in court

EBENSBURG — It was just over a year ago that the governor came to this region to announce a massive coal-mining and coke-making project that would bring 750 permanent jobs to employment-hungry Cambria County.

Elected officials, merchants, out-of-work miners, and contractors alike – all were jubilant at the coming rebirth of the former Mine 33 site in Cambria Township.

But soon joy turned to concern as an environmental group in Harrisburg filed a legal complaint.

And now plans for the $400-million facility, to be called Cambria Coke, are stagnant – some say possibly dead – and the near-silence is deafening.

“It’s not on our books as an active project right now,” said Dave Allen, communications manager for Chicago-based Mittal Steel, one of three business partners first proposed for the project.

Even Gov. Ed Rendell’s own staff is somewhat at a loss for words.

“The only thing we can say is that Cambria Coke is continuing to defend the plan approval in court,” said Helen Humphries Short, spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection.

“It is moving slowly through the courts,” she said, “but it is moving.”

Local officials are rapidly losing hope.

“It’s difficult to be optimistic at this time,” said Ebensburg Mayor Charles Moyer.

“This has been a priority project with the governor, but it’s been remarkably stagnant,” said Ron Budash, former director of the Cambria County Industrial Development Authority. “It’s in the hands of the court system in Harrisburg, that’s all I know.”

As for the environmentalists who are challenging the coal-to-coke plant, they are anxious to air their legal case.

“We’re ready to move ahead whenever the case gets to that stage in court, and that’s always up to the judge,” said John Hanger, president of the Harrisburg-based Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, or PennFuture.

Those who would actually finance, build and operate the project are remaining tight-lipped, saying they do not want to comment on matters in litigation.

But privately they say they are watching to see how long – or how short – the appeal process will be. Only when the legal decks are clear – and only then – will they decide whether to proceed, they say.

The project has three players: Latrobe-based Amfire Coal Mining Co., Chicago-based Mittal Steel USA, and SunCoke Co., a division of Sunoco Inc., based in Knoxville, Tenn.

As first planned, Amfire would mine the coal and bring it to the plant, to be built in Cambria Township.

SunCoke would run the plant and sell the coke to Mittal.

The status now varies among the three, with Amfire still planning to do some mining in the Cresson area,

SunCoke still willing to run the plant, but Mittal still assessing the plans.

The scope of the project is massive. The plant would use 750,000 gallons of water coming from the abandoned mine that normally would have to be treated for its acidic discharge.

If built, the facility would process 2.55 million tons of coal into 1.7 million tons of coke each year. At the same time, it would produce 165 megawatts of electricity by recovering the heat from exhaust gases during processes.

The coke oven batteries would be under a constant negative pressure, to minimize emissions, and the plant would have state-of-the-art air pollution control equipment.

But the issue of contention is mercury.

From the beginning, environmentalists have looked askance at the Rendell administration and DEP approving the coke-plant permit just one day before tougher federal mercury emission rules took effect.

Hanger said that single factor should be enough to derail the project, and others like it, and that’s why PennFuture is justified in holding up the project.

“Pennsylvania has chosen to block the federal law,” he said.

But Rendell’s top officials say the federal mercury reduction rule penalizes Pennsylvania’s coal industry.

“The federal rule sets the toughest standards for Pennsylvania coal and encourages utilities to meet mercury reduction obligations by switching to coal mined in the West,” said DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty.

Since the PennFuture challenge was filed, Pennsylvania received federal approval for a mercury-reduction plan that would protect the market for bituminous coal while reducing mercury levels, DEP says.

While mercury emission levels are significant for this region, the proposed coke-making plant would not be one of the worst offenders – with or without new federal standards.

Some of the worst mercury emitters in the region are older, coal-burning power plants such as the Keystone plant in Shelocta, which released 1,800 pounds of mercury in 2001, according to the most recent federal figures.

By comparison, the proposed coke plant in Ebensburg would be permitted to release 47 pounds of mercury per year.

If it survives the legal challenge and is built, the coke plant would be the first in the nation to put mercury controls in the facility.

County officials say they still hope that the coke plant comes to Ebensburg.

“We have not heard new specifics, but the governor’s people still say it’s not dead,” said Cambria County President Commissioner P.J. Stevens. “We believe its backers will overcome the environmental issues that have been raised, and rightly so. Then it will be up to market conditions and the companies involved to make the determination on whether to proceed.

“We’re not giving up hope.”



A time line of events



• March 2005: Gov. Ed Rendell announces a coal-mining and coke-making project that would bring 750 permanent jobs to the Ebensburg area.

• April 4, 2005: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection approves a plan to allow Cambria Coke Co., a subsidiary of Sun Coke Inc., to begin construction of the coal-to-coke plant.

• April 5, 2005: Federal changes take effect that require stricter emissions reductions at facilities like the coke plant.

• May 4, 2005: Harrisburg-based PennFuture files a notice to appeal the permit, and DEP issues an order to modify the permit.

• May 24: PennFuture files an amended appeal, raising further objections to the plant.

• May 27: Cambria Coke appeals DEP’s modifications to its permit.

• August: Rendell expresses confidence that the plant will be built, but Chicago-based Mittal Steel does not commit, citing the environmental appeal.

• October: The deadline for a $3.5 million state grant for the coke plant expires, but project sponsors say plans are still alive, pending environmental appeals.

• Today: More than one year has passed, and the permit appeal remains in state court.

• What’s next: If and when the court resolves the permit appeal, investors will evaluate the original plans, market conditions and permit conditions to make a final decision.

Susan Evans can be reached at 471-6778 or sevans@tribdem.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.