Environmental Hearing Board opinion is about
Here’s what the
As a lawyer who appeared before the Environmental Hearing Board frequently and had the privilege of serving as a judge on this board before I retired, I found Rachel Gleason’s letter on behalf of the PA Coal Alliance (“Hearing Board Decision Jeopardizes Mining Jobs,” Feb. 25) surprising, so I read the entire board opinion she referenced. It involves a permit to allow deep coal mining directly beneath a state park and the likelihood that doing so will dewater a stream in the park.
The opinion doesn’t reject a sound scientific permit issuance decision made by the state Department of Environmental Protection, despite Ms. Gleason’s suggestion to the contrary. Rather, after hearing testimony over several days, the board said the evidence showed the real potential conflicts between the permit reviewer’s conclusions supporting a decision to issue this permit and the concerns of his own DEP superiors as to the potential adverse impacts of allowing this mining. The reviewer appeared to be completely unaware of those concerns. Thus, his decision on the permit seems to have been made in a “vacuum” and without addressing those concerns. There is nothing emotional or unscientific about the board’s decision to accept the conclusions that the hearing’s evidence demanded.
Ms. Gleason correctly suggests the board found that Consol’s prior actions and decisions were at least part of the reason Consol asserted it would be adversely impacted if the permit were superseded. However, Consol and Ms. Gleason cannot fault others for those Consol decisions. They were made prior to this permit being issued. They form no basis for saying they control whether this challenged DEP decision was sound or not.
As Consol and the PA Coal Alliance are no doubt aware, if the DEP denied the permit application, Consol could have asked the EHB to reverse that decision. If the evidence supported Consol’s request, the EHB could then have done so. Consol would not want its right to seek such a reversal of the decision taken from it. Here, another interested party challenged the validity of the DEP’s decision. Certainly neither Ms. Gleason nor Consol should be heard to suggest that the same right afforded Consol should not be afforded others. RICHARD EHMANN
Point Breeze