Group seeks to intervene in case to protect area streams
The Center for Coalfield Justice filed a petition Thursday with the state Environmental Hearing Board seeking to intervene in Consol Energy’s appeal of a special condition included in a mine permit revision issued for the company’s Bailey Mine.
Consol filed an appeal with the board March 24 challenging a special condition of a permit revision issued Feb. 21 by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
The revision allows the company to change the use of 2,538.59 acres of the Bailey Mine’s existing underground permit area in Richhill Township from underground development mining to full extraction longwall mining.
The special condition the company is challenging would require the company to conduct pre-mining biological monitoring of three intermittent streams that may be impacted by mining.
The monitoring was required in Patterson Creek, an unnamed tributary of Patterson Creek and an unnamed tributary of Browns Creek to provide information for post-mining restoration efforts.
“Consol has decided to go to court to avoid having to do even the most necessary baseline monitoring to insure the future quality of these high quality streams,” said Patrick Grenter, CCJ executive director. “If Consol is so committed to this region, why are they suing to avoid any meaningful protection of our natural resources.” .
The special condition is a responsible provision, insuring that Patterson Creek and the two tributaries are restored to their pre-mining conditions, said Veronica Coptis, a center community organizer.
“It seems like Consol is trying to avoid having to fix any problems their mining causes, just like what CCJ fought against for years in the campaign to save Duke Lake,” she said.
A company spokesman could not be reached Thursday for comment. In its notice of appeal filed with the Environmental Hearing Board, Consol claims DEP lacks the regulatory authority to impose the condition regarding the three streams because the streams are intermittent not perennial streams.
It also claims DEP relied only on a “technical guidance document” to justify the condition, and as a result is improperly imposing “binding norms” and regulatory requirements in violation of statutory rulemaking procedures.